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

The description reveals the destructive nature (removal), the specific git command, and the return type (list of removed paths). Given no annotations, this is fairly transparent. However, it omits that removal is irreversible and that ignored files are not affected (unless -x is used).

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: first explains the core action, second details the return value. No extraneous information. Front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and return. The tool is a straightforward wrapper around a known git command, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. The workingDirectory parameter is already described in the schema as 'Git repo path. Default current directory.' The description does not enrich this.

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 the action: 'Remove untracked files and directories from the working tree' and specifies the underlying git command. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'find_changes' or 'push' by focusing on cleanup of untracked content.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this tool is for permanent removal of untracked files, unlike 'undo_changes' which handles tracked changes. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description.

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