erinys_prune

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether pruning is destructive, reversible, or whether the dry_run parameter simulates the operation. This is a significant gap for a likely state-changing action.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and condition, containing no fluff. It is highly concise and easy to parse, though its brevity sacrifices necessary detail.

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?

With two parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to inform an agent about parameter semantics, safety, or expected results. For a potentially destructive operation, this is insufficient for confident tool selection and invocation.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters. The only reference to 'threshold' merely echoes the schema without adding meaning about how it is used or what values are appropriate, and dry_run is completely unmentioned.

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 'prune' and resource 'observations', with a condition 'below threshold', making the tool's core action clear. It distinguishes from siblings like erinys_delete by implying a targeted cleanup of decayed data, though 'decayed' is not defined, leaving some ambiguity.

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 implies usage when observations have decayed below a threshold but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like erinys_delete or erinys_forget. No exclusions or context guidance is provided.

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