Safely removes temporary cache, state files, and logs while preserving source code and .bridge.bak backups, keeping workspaces tidy without risking project files.
Safely cleans temporary cache, state files, and logs (.composebridge-state, .composebridge-journal.json, *.tmp)
without touching source code or .bridge.bak backups.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description earns credit for adding the concrete deletion set and, crucially, the protected artifacts it will not touch. It does not disclose irreversibility or whether files are moved to a trash/backup before removal, and the word 'safely' slightly undersells the destructive hint without contradicting it.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the exclusion clause immediately after the inclusion list — every clause carries unique information and nothing is repeated from annotations or schema.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and given zero parameters the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is that it never says where these files live (workspace root? project directory?), which matters for a destructive cleanup invoked across a multi-project workspace.
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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument invocation with fixed, predetermined targets.
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 ('cleans') and enumerates the exact resources removed with literal file patterns (.composebridge-state, .composebridge-journal.json, *.tmp). It also bounds the scope negatively ('without touching source code or .bridge.bak backups'), so an agent knows precisely what is and is not deleted. No sibling tool overlaps with cache cleanup, so sibling differentiation is not a gap here.
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?
Usage is only implied by the scope statement — an agent can infer this is a housekeeping/cleanup action, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or prerequisite mention (e.g. whether it should follow a build or sync). No alternative tool is named as a substitute or as a complement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.