gc

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. The description 'gc' reveals nothing about whether this is a read/write operation, its effects, permissions needed, rate limits, or response format. It fails to provide any behavioral context.

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?

While extremely brief, this is under-specification rather than true conciseness. The single word 'gc' doesn't provide enough information to be useful, so it doesn't earn a high score for efficiency. Every sentence (or word) should earn its place, and this doesn't.

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?

Given the tool has 1 parameter with no schema documentation, no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools with similar-sounding names, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about what the tool does, how to use it, or what to expect, making it insufficient for agent understanding.

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 schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, meaning the parameter 'prompt' is undocumented in the schema. The description 'gc' adds no information about what the 'prompt' parameter is for, its format, or semantics, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_completion' or 'analyze_code'. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.

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