purge_orphans

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

The description identifies what is deleted (unused datablocks) and aligns with the destructiveHint annotation. It adds little beyond the annotation itself, lacking details on irreversibility or file-scope effects, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words, front-loading the core action. It is appropriately brief for a no-parameter tool, though it could incorporate more usage context without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the destructive nature and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally complete: it names the action and target but omits usage context and scope. With no parameters and clear annotations, a score of 3 reflects the adequate-but-basic level of completeness.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object, so the description cannot add parameter-level detail. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is given for tools with no 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 clearly states the action 'Hapus' (delete) and the resource 'datablock yang tidak dipakai' (unused datablocks), making its purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from similar cleanup tools like cleanup_scene, so it falls short of 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cleanup_scene or delete_object. There is no mention of prerequisites, scope, or exclusions.

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