storage_cleanup_sidecars

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

The description discloses the main actions (pruning missing docs, orphan artifacts, compacting SQLite) but lacks depth on behavioral traits like destructiveness, reversibility, or required permissions. With no annotations, this is adequate but could be more informative.

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 with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and actions, the second clarifies the root parameter. No unnecessary words.

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?

While all parameters are covered, the description does not mention the output schema or return value. For a cleanup tool, the agent might need to know if it returns success/failure or a report. Also, safety and idempotency are not addressed. The presence of an output schema but lack of description leaves a gap.

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?

All four parameters are explained in the description: 'root' is clarified with fallback, 'compact_catalog' is described as 'optionally compacting SQLite', and the two boolean flags are directly tied to 'pruning missing documents' and 'orphan artifacts'. This adds value over the schema which has zero descriptions.

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 tool's action ('clean the root sidecar catalog') and specifies what it does (prune missing documents, orphan artifacts, compact SQLite). It distinguishes from siblings like 'storage_list_sidecars' or 'storage_delete_document' by referring to a general cleanup operation.

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 versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or when to avoid using it. It only defines the action and the root fallback.

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