pdg_dirty

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states a high-level effect ('dirty work items') without disclosing consequences, reversibility, or whether dirty_all changes the scope. The description does not mention side effects or any prerequisites, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a modestly complex tool, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'dirty' does in the re-cooking workflow, how it relates to pdg_cook, or what the expected result is. The description lacks sufficient context for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 the two parameters (path, dirty_all), so the description must compensate. It does not explain 'path' or 'dirty_all' beyond what the names imply. The description mentions 'work items' and 'TOP node', but it adds no additional meaning to the parameters, leaving a significant gap.

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 ('Dirty') and resource ('work items on a TOP node') with a clear purpose ('for re-cooking'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like pdg_cook, pdg_status, and pdg_cancel.

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 implied by the phrase 'for re-cooking'—the tool is used to mark work items before cooking. However, no explicit when-to-use or alternative conditions are given, so it lacks clear guidance on when to choose this over pdg_cook or pdg_cancel.

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