force_garbage_collection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does but does not mention potential side effects like performance impact during GC, whether it blocks, or if repeated calls are safe. The memory freed reporting is noted, but not the actual behavior beyond that.

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 a single sentence that conveys the essential action and outcome without any wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and minimal.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It specifies the action and the result. However, it could be slightly more complete by noting the typical use case (e.g., manual memory management) or safety considerations, but overall it is sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail; it already states the purpose effectively. Baseline 4 is appropriate as there are no parameters to document.

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 verb 'Force garbage collection' and the outcome 'report the amount of memory freed'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_memory_usage (which reports without forcing) and find_memory_leaks (which identifies leaks).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_memory_usage, find_memory_leaks) or mention scenarios where forcing GC is appropriate or inappropriate (e.g., performance implications).

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