gc_ticker

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 'tick' action forces a refresh (a behavioral trait) and identifies the underlying source (gc_daemon). However, it doesn't disclose side effects of 'tick' (does it mutate daemon state? is it reversible?), rate considerations, or what the returned snapshot contains.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose statement first. The action breakdown is compact and readable. Slightly under-specified but efficient with no wasted words.

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?

As a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin. It explains what it does and the action semantics, but doesn't clarify what the snapshot contains, how fresh it is, or why it would be preferred over the many gc_* sibling tools. For a low-complexity read tool this is minimally sufficient.

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%, with the action parameter having an enum and description in the schema. The description restates the enum values but adds the 'default' behavior for 'get' which is genuinely useful. Minimal added value beyond schema, so 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?

Clearly states it returns the latest ticker state from gc_daemon. 'Situational awareness snapshot' gives context. However, 'ticker' is somewhat vague without defining what data the ticker contains, and sibling tools like gc_beat, gc_timing, and gc_time could overlap in purpose without clear differentiation.

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 two actions (get vs tick) are explained with 'force a fresh tick' clarifying when to use tick. But there's no guidance on when to choose this over siblings like gc_timing, gc_beat, or gc_cost, and no when-not-to-use guidance.

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