set_gc_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and permission requirement, without disclosing side effects, persistence, or impact on server state. For a configuration tool, this is minimal.

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: one for purpose, one for permission. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the key action.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks parameter details and behavioral insights. For a tool that modifies server state, the absence of guidance on flag format and potential consequences makes it incomplete.

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?

The sole parameter 'debug_flags' is a string with no schema description (0% coverage) and no additional explanation in the description. The format (e.g., comma-separated, JSON) is missing, leaving the agent with no guidance on how to specify the flags.

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 'Set GC debug flags on the CDV server,' specifying a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('GC debug flags'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_gc_stats' (retrieve) and 'set_gc_monitor' (different resource).

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 mentions a required permission ('Requires sys_viewlogs permission') as a prerequisite but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_gc_monitor' or 'get_gc_stats'. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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