List GC tables

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds modestly useful context beyond that: cost=medium, capability getgc, and requires active-client. But 'Produces: bounded-candidates' is vague and no output/pagination behavior is described.

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 purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the body is dense template boilerplate ('Signature', 'Phase', 'Capabilities', 'Produces', 'Safety') and the Signature block redundantly restates the schema. The 'On failure: inspect tool-schema' pointer is meta rather than useful content.

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 read-only, idempotent list tool with 100% schema coverage and full annotations, the description is largely sufficient: it names the source, the precondition, and the safety profile. It lacks any note on result volume/ordering, but nothing critical is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents limit, query, and threadContext. The description adds little, and its phrase 'key/value query matching' slightly mischaracterizes the schema's 'search text' string parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (enumerate) and resource (table objects from getgc(true)), plus the filtering behavior. It is distinguishable from list-gc-functions and find-tables-by-key, but it never explicitly names a sibling or contrast condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives a precondition (Requires: active-client) and a phase marker (observe), which implies when the tool fits. However, it never states when NOT to use it or which alternative (find-tables-by-key, search-gc-value, filter-gc) to pick, leaving routing to inference.

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