get_gc_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies this is a read-only diagnostic action by describing it as 'returns' events. However, it does not mention any potential permissions needed or whether the process must be running. Still, the safety profile is clear enough for typical use.

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 very concise, using two sentences: the first to state the tool's purpose and output fields, and the second to provide usage guidance. Every word adds value, and the structure is immediately clear.

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 that there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the output fields (generation, duration, pause time, timestamp). It also covers common use cases and suggests a prerequisite tool. For a diagnostic tool with only two parameters, this is complete and well-rounded.

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 covers all parameters (pid and sampleSeconds) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description merely restates the purpose without adding extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 that the tool returns recent GC events for a .NET process and lists specific data fields (generation, duration, pause time, timestamp). It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings by implying it provides detailed event-level data, while other tools like get_memory_stats provide aggregate stats.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (investigating spikes, pauses, memory growth) and what prerequisite calls to make (get_memory_stats first). It provides clear contextual guidance, making it easy for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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