storage_cleanup_helper

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-writing operation. The description usefully reinforces and extends this by stating it deletes nothing and instead proposes cleanup commands, which clarifies the output is advisory. It adds real value but no depth on scope, cost, or discovery behavior beyond the annotation.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what it detects before stating the non-destructive behavior and the trigger condition. No filler; only the missing parameter detail keeps it from being fully economical.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is not required, and the readOnly safety profile is covered by annotations plus the 'supprime rien' sentence. However, with 0% schema description coverage and no scope guidance for path/top, the definition leaves an agent unable to invoke it precisely.

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% for both parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never mentions 'top' (how many results) or 'path' (what gets scanned). An agent cannot tell from the text whether path scopes the scan or what the default empty path means. This leaves both parameters effectively undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (spot/repere) and resource (storage) and enumerates concrete targets: biggest directories, old job logs, large checkpoints, duplicated virtual envs. This is far more informative than the generic name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as audit_orphan_files, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'A utiliser quand romeo_quota signale un depassement', naming the sibling tool whose output routes the agent here. No when-not condition or alternative (e.g. audit_orphan_files) is offered, so it stops short of a 5.

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