run_maintenance

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions automatic fixes but doesn't specify what actions are taken, whether they are destructive, if the tool is safe to run multiple times, or what the dry run mode reveals. This lack of behavioral detail is insufficient for a maintenance tool.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value with no fluff. Ideal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It identifies what the tool does and the option for auto-fix, but lacks details on specific checks, output format, or side effects. For a maintenance tool, more context is expected.

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% for the single boolean parameter 'auto', with a clear description. The description adds 'Can optionally perform fixes automatically' which mirrors the schema. It does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 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 tool runs maintenance checks on Claude Code installation, identifies issues, old backups, and archive candidates, and can optionally auto-fix. The verb 'run' and resource 'maintenance checks' are specific. While there are similar siblings like health_check and run_doctor, the description provides enough unique purpose.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like health_check, cleanup_backups, or run_doctor. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. No explicit when/when-not or alternative comparisons.

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