gc_reflect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the read/analysis nature implicitly ('Analyze coverage', 'Shows') but doesn't explicitly state it's read-only, doesn't mention that it spans ALL banks by default (a potentially expensive operation), and doesn't describe output format. The analysis nature is implied rather than confirmed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a compact list of what it shows. All sentences earn their place. Slightly terse for a tool with no annotations, but there's no waste or redundancy.

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?

No annotations and no output schema means the description carries more burden. It mentions what the analysis shows (banks with facts, tag distribution, gaps, stale facts) which is decent. However, for a multi-bank analysis tool, it doesn't clarify whether output is a summary vs. detailed dump, any performance implications of running across all banks, or whether 'stale facts' implies destructive behavior. Adequate but with a few gaps given zero annotation support.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds 'across all memory banks' to clarify the scope of topic analysis and the 'tag distribution, coverage gaps, stale facts' list gives meaning to what the analysis produces. Notably, the description does NOT explain the 'bank' parameter's role in restricting scope (though schema covers it), but the description's output list adds value beyond schema.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Analyze coverage for a topic across all memory banks.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like gc_recall (retrieval) and gc_retain (storage) by emphasizing analysis/coverage rather than data operations. Lacks a strong differentiator naming specific siblings but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it (when you need coverage analysis of a topic) but provides no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or alternatives. It doesn't clarify the relationship to gc_find or gc_recall for search-style queries. Acceptable but minimal guidance beyond 'use for coverage analysis.'

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