gc_banks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether create/delete are destructive, whether operations are persisted permanently, what happens on failure, or what statistics are included. The description mentions 'stats' action but doesn't explain what data is returned.

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?

Two concise sentences with a clear action-to-purpose mapping. It is efficient and front-loads the primary purpose. Minor deduction for the inconsistency (describing 3 actions while the schema has 4) and for using shorthand quotes around action names that could be clearer.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is under-specified. The delete action is entirely absent from the description despite being a first-class action in the schema and having its own special 'force' parameter. It doesn't clarify edge cases like force deletion behavior, whether create overwrites, or what stats output looks like.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all 5 parameters. The description adds marginal value by mapping each action to its relevant params (name for create/delete, keywords/description for create), which reinforces the schema rather than repeating it. Some useful grouping of params to actions is provided, earning above-baseline.

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 the tool manages memory banks and lists actions (list, create, stats), which is clear for the primary purpose. However, it omits the 'delete' action from the action list even though it's in the schema, creating inconsistency. The purpose is identified as managing banks but the scope is muddled by the missing delete reference.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs sibling tools like gc_retain, gc_recall, or gc_memory-related tools. No exclusions or alternative tools are named. The action enum provides some context but no description explains which scenario calls for which action or tool.

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