clean_junk

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It hints at safety with 'Safely' and the dry-run instruction, which implies this is a destructive operation that can be previewed. But it does not state what gets permanently destroyed, whether confirmation is needed, or any permission requirements.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences deliver purpose and the critical safety tip with zero waste. The instruction is immediately actionable.

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?

The tool is a simple mutation with two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the essential safety guidance but omits what happens after running (e.g., return value, confirmation prompts) and does not specify any prerequisites or side effects beyond the dry-run caution. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it adds no parameter-specific information. The schema's enum values (e.g., 'derivedData', 'brew') are self-explanatory, and the default for dryRun is documented in the schema, but the description does not clarify how parameters interact or what the consequence of each selection is.

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 states a clear verb ('remove') and resource ('selected caches'), and the qualifier 'selected' signals user-controlled scope. It distinguishes this from scan_junk (which likely scans) and get_disk_usage (which measures usage) via the explicit removal action.

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 instruction 'Always dry-run first' provides an important safety guideline for usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'run scan_junk first to identify caches'), leaving that routing implicit.

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