graphify_freshness

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context: it uses built_at_commit over mtime, handles modified and untracked files, and flags staleness. This complements the annotations without contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No extraneous information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional param, 0 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It explains the staleness check logic and recommends next steps, though it could briefly mention that output includes a boolean result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has one parameter (as_json) with no description (0% schema_description_coverage). The tool description does not mention this parameter or its effect on output, so it provides no added value over the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool checks whether graph.json is stale relative to the current git HEAD. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('graph.json staleness'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by recommending graphify_build(update=True) if stale.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains that it prefers built_at_commit over file mtime, and recommends graphify_build(update=True) if stale. This provides clear guidance on when to use and what to do next, though it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.