gc_tool_call

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. It mentions the code tools need server-side execution enabled, which is useful, but doesn't disclose error handling behavior, what happens when a tool name doesn't exist, whether there are security/permission implications of dispatching arbitrary tools, or what the response format looks like. For a generic dispatcher that can invoke arbitrary tools, this is a meaningful gap.

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 plus a brief classification of tool types. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds the availability distinction for handler vs code tools. Each sentence earns its place, though the ticket reference (GC-2632) adds little value to an agent.

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 generic dispatcher with nested objects and no output schema, the description conveys the core usage pattern but leaves gaps: it doesn't explain what the return value is (both for handler and code tools), doesn't cover argument formatting requirements, and doesn't address error cases like invalid tool names. It's adequate for a capable agent but not fully complete for a high-risk dispatch tool.

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 four parameters. The description adds context about cwd and session_id being for code tools, which aligns with the schema descriptions. The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides, but covers the nuance that arguments is a nested object and cwd/session_id are code-tool specific.

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 what it does: 'Execute any daemon tool by name through the uniform tool-call surface'. It uses a specific verb (execute), names the resource (daemon tool by name), and references a ticket (GC-2632). It distinguishes from siblings as a generic dispatcher vs. the specific gc_* handler tools.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Useful when you know the exact tool name and want to dispatch it without a dedicated MCP tool.' It distinguishes handler tools (always available) from code tools (require server-side execution enabled). It lacks explicit when-NOT-to-use guidance or named alternatives, but the intent is reasonably clear.

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