scan_cleanup_targets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description reinforces this with an explicit 'Dry-Run, deletes nothing' statement rather than contradicting it. It also discloses the cross-tool contract (scan_id feeds move_to_trash) and the human-consent step, which annotations cannot convey. It does not cover scan duration or result volume, keeping it below 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and ordered by size, followed by the dry-run guarantee and the downstream requirement. No filler.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description still flags the key output (scan_id) and the required consent step. What is missing is disambiguation from analyze_disk_usage for an agent choosing between the two scanning tools.

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 100%, including an enum explanation for target_type and per-field descriptions for size and day thresholds, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only gestures at 'conditions' without adding format or default guidance, which is the expected baseline when the schema is complete.

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 concrete verb and resource ('enumerate deletion candidates matching conditions, ordered by size descending') and immediately marks the operation as dry-run. It clearly separates itself from move_to_trash by noting nothing is deleted, though it does not articulate how it differs from the sibling analyze_disk_usage.

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 real workflow guidance: the returned scan_id is required by move_to_trash, and results should be presented to the user for consent. It stops short of naming when to prefer analyze_disk_usage or which target_type to pick, so selection among scan modes is left to the schema.

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