gc_beat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions 'report durability' and 'flush buffers,' which hints at internal state effects, but it doesn't explain what flush does destructively, what status returns, what durability means in this context, or any side effects of actions. The behavior of each action remains opaque.

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 appropriately brief—two sentences with a clean action list. Every sentence earns its place. However, the brevity borders on under-specification since the tool has a four-way action dispatch with 11 parameters, so a bit more detail per action could have been warranted while staying concise.

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?

This is a complex multi-action tool (four distinct operations) with 11 parameters and no output schema and no annotations. The description gives only a one-line summary of each action without semantics around input requirements, return values, or failure modes. For its complexity, the description is significantly incomplete—an agent would struggle to know what parameters matter for each action and what to expect back.

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%, and the schema itself annotates each parameter with its relevant action ('for ingest', 'for report'). The description adds a concise action list that maps roughly to parameter groups. While the description doesn't deeply elaborate beyond the schema, the schema already does the heavy lifting by pairing each parameter with its action context, so the bar for additional value is met reasonably.

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 identifies the resource (beat accumulation) and lists four concrete actions (ingest, status, flush, report). However, it's terse and doesn't explain the overall purpose with a verb+resource pattern meaningfully; 'Beat accumulation' is somewhat ambiguous and doesn't clearly distinguish this from siblings like gc_recall, gc_retain, or gc_checkpoint without further context.

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 vs alternatives. The action list implies different use cases (ingesting turns vs checking status vs flushing buffers vs reporting durability), but there's no explicit direction about which action to choose under what circumstances, and no exclusions or alternatives referenced despite the large sibling set.

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