gc

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful scope: removal is limited to unreferenced sections and the exact eligibility rule is provided. This makes the operation more predictable. It doesn't discuss irreversibility or effect reporting, but the destructive annotation plus the precise scope is strong transparency.

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 two tight sentences. The first states the action, the second states the condition. Every clause contributes and there is no redundant phrasing, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a zero-parameter destructive tool, the description is complete: it states the action and the exact criterion of what will be removed. The annotations cover the destructive nature, and because the tool has no input schema or output schema requirements, there are no additional expectations to clarify.

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 accepts no parameters, so there is nothing the description needs to add about parameter meaning. Since parameters are absent, the description is not missing any parameter-level guidance; the eligibility condition in the description is the only relevant input context.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Remove unreferenced sections from the knowledge base.' It defines exactly what the tool does and the eligibility criterion. The name 'gc' is cryptic, but the description fully disambiguates it from sibling management tools like consolidate or rebuild.

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 gives a clear condition for which sections are eligible, but it does not explicitly tell the agent when to invoke gc versus related maintenance tools such as rebuild or consolidate. The intended usage is implied, not explicitly stated, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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