mission_gc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently discloses that archive=true cancels non-terminal stale missions older than max_age_days while preserving data and event history, and that terminal missions are never modified. Core destructive behavior is clear, though ancillary details like permissions or error behavior are absent.

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 three compact sentences with the main action front-loaded in the first clause. It contains no filler, and each sentence adds distinct information: the listing purpose, the conditional archive behavior, and the terminal-mission guard.

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 an output schema exists and no annotations are present, the description covers the core behavior, side effects, and the terminal-mission exception well enough for typical calls. The main gap is the undocumented repo parameter, which would require an agent to infer its meaning from the name alone. Overall, it is a fairly complete definition for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does explain archive and max_age_days via 'archive=true' and 'older than max_age_days', but it never explains the repo parameter. This is partial compensation: two of three parameters receive meaningful semantic grounding.

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 immediately identifies the tool as 'H11 housekeeping' and states a specific action: list terminal and long-stale missions cluttering mission_list, with archive mode cancelling eligible non-terminal missions. It clearly pairs a verb with a resource and distinguishes itself from normal mission listing by the cleanup/housekeeping framing. The terminal-mission exclusion further sharpens the scope.

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 'H11 housekeeping' prefix gives useful context, and the archive=true conditional plus 'Terminal missions are never re-touched' clarify when mutation happens and what is excluded. However, the description does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as mission_list or mission_cancel, nor does it say when to prefer them. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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