erasure_residue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers exceptionally: it declares read-only behavior, no-LLM constraint, no echoing of passed values, 12-char fingerprints for findings, and fail-closed behavior for unreadable files. This is far beyond what simple annotations would typically provide.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the opening states the core purpose, the middle distinguishes three critical outcomes, and the final part covers privacy and failure semantics. Although longer than average, the density and importance of the information justify the length, and it is front-loaded with intent.

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 complex verification tool with no output schema, the description explains the key output categories (LIVE, UNRECLAIMED, PLAIN) and the fail-closed verdict behavior. It does not specify the exact return object shape or clarify max_file_mb, but an agent has enough to invoke and interpret the tool correctly in most cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively conveys that root is a directory and values are the sensitive content to search for, but max_file_mb is never mentioned or given contextual meaning. The prose partially fills the gap but does not fully document all three parameters.

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 names a specific verb and resource: "Scan a directory for values that should have been erased." It also clearly differentiates this tool from siblings by noting it scans ANY store, not just this one, and by separating LIVE, UNRECLAIMED, and PLAIN outcomes. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable even among many erasure-related siblings.

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 gives strong contextual guidance: it is read-only, checks actual disk presence across any store, and clarifies that delete() success does not mean data is gone. It also tells the agent how to interpret outcomes, such as not reporting UNRECLAIMED as a vendor defect and running VACUUM/compact instead. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the usage context is clear.

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