gc_aden

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lists actions including 'delete' (implying mutation/destruction) but reveals nothing about side effects, whether deletion is permanent, what 'turn' does to state, authentication needs, or consequences across the action set. The one-line summary is insufficient for a tool with five distinct mutating behaviors.

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 extremely brief — two sentences. However, this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness; for a 7-parameter, 5-action tool it's too terse to be useful. Still, there's zero wasted words. The format is clean and readable. It earns a 4 for brevity despite lacking substance.

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 has 5 mutating actions (including delete), 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. It doesn't explain return formats, what 'turn' requires, how spawn works with persona/business_name/pre_research preconditions, or side effects. With a complex action-based tool this level of description is inadequate for an agent to invoke it correctly without guessing.

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 100%, so all 7 parameters are described in the schema (id, action, message, persona, instance_id, pre_research, business_name). The description lists the action names, providing some semantic context that maps roughly to parameters, but it adds minimal meaning beyond the schema (e.g., doesn't clarify that 'id' and 'instance_id' are aliases, though the schema already notes that). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.

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 states 'Aden conversation instances' and lists actions (spawn, turn, get, list, delete), which conveys that this is a resource-management tool for Aden conversation instances. However, 'Aden' is undefined — what is Aden? This lacks specificity about what spawn/turn/get actually do at the domain level, and the ambiguity doesn't help distinguish it from siblings like gc_conversation, gc_agent_conversation, and gc_peer_conversation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings gc_conversation, gc_agent_conversation, gc_peer_conversation, gc_sessions all plausibly related to conversations, the description offers zero direction on which one to choose. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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