gc_docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action dispatch model and includes a validate action for package integrity, which is helpful. However, it doesn't describe return formats, pagination behavior, error cases (e.g., missing doc), or whether guide results are ordered/ranked, leaving behavioral expectations partially unspecified.

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 well-structured with a clear one-line purpose followed by a compact action list. Each action is a single line with parenthetical qualifiers. It's slightly long with the enumerate actions but each earns its place since the action parameter drives behavior.

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 9-parameter dispatcher tool with no output schema, the description covers all six action modes and which parameters apply to each. It would benefit from a note on what results look like (ranked guides, raw template bodies) but the per-action qualifiers provide reasonable completeness.

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 already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds marginal value by mapping each parameter to specific actions ('id/path for get', 'name for template', 'topic for guide'), which reinforces but doesn't fundamentally extend the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it queries the gc_daemon user manual and enumerates the specific actions (search, get, list, guide, template, validate). It distinguishes from knowledge-memory siblings (gc_recall, gc_retain) by specifying it's the packaged manual, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 opening line gives strong usage guidance ('whenever you need authoritative help with daemon setup, configuration, workflows, templates, or troubleshooting'), and the action list clarifies which action fits which need. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like gc_recall or gc_find, nor state when NOT to use it.

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