cleanup_note

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains destructive behavior (deleting intermediate files, optionally deleting final note and manifest), safety mechanisms (only deletes manifest-recorded files and validates paths to prevent traversal), and the return structure. This is comprehensive for a deletion tool.

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 concise and well-structured: a purpose statement, parameter behavior, safety note, and return value. Each sentence contributes useful information without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 description covers purpose, parameters, safety, and return value comprehensively for a tool of this complexity. Minor gaps exist, such as not specifying whether the task must be completed before cleanup or explicitly describing the task_id format, but the return field 'missing' implies handling for absent files.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining include_note's semantics in detail (False keeps final note, True deletes it along with manifest). task_id is implied as the task identifier but not explicitly defined; overall, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's function: cleaning up intermediate artifacts (downloaded media, transcripts, screenshots, temp files, dl directory) generated by a specific task. It distinguishes from sibling cleanup_all by targeting a single task, and from get_task_files by being a deletion operation.

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 the tool is used for per-task cleanup but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like cleanup_all or get_task_files. It provides contextual guidance on the include_note parameter but lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool references.

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