cleanup_resources

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states what is deleted and performs 'basic resource cleanup,' but lacks specifics on fallback behavior if OUTPUT_PATH is unset, whether subdirectories are affected, or potential side effects. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence and a usage example. Every word is necessary, with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the key information.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the action, resources, usage condition, and provides an example. No additional information is needed for an agent to correctly invoke this 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?

The input schema has no parameters, so the description carries the full semantic burden. The description explains the tool's purpose and operation, adding meaningful context beyond the empty schema. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 ('deletes files') and the resources involved ('OUTPUT_PATH or default temporary directory'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which are all math/calculation tools, making its purpose specific and distinct.

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 guidance: 'Call only when the user explicitly indicates deletion of temporary or output files.' This instructs the agent on appropriate invocation context. No need for alternatives since siblings are unrelated.

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