wsl_destroy_all_temp

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is set. The description adds context about what gets destroyed ('every throwaway distro provisioned in this session') and describes the return payload, going beyond the structured annotations.

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 two concise sentences with the return format clearly listed. No filler or redundant content; every part adds value.

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 no-parameter destructive cleanup tool with annotations covering destructiveness and idempotence, the description fully clarifies the operation's scope and result. The output schema exists and the inline return example augments it; nothing critical is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description needs no parameter-level guidance. The empty schema is fully covered, and the function's behavior is self-contained; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Tear down every throwaway distro provisioned in this session.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like wsl_destroy (targets one distro) and wsl_list_temp (lists only), making the scope explicit.

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 scope 'every throwaway distro provisioned in this session' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but with wsl_destroy as a sibling the intended distinction is evident.

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