clear_plans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It says it 'clears' files (a destructive action) and claims to follow team standards, but doesn't state what gets destroyed, whether the action is reversible, what 'plan files' specifically are, or what the side effects are. For a destructive cleanup operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler or redundancy. The description is appropriately short for a zero-parameter tool. However, the phrase 'Follows team standards for cleanup' is arguably boilerplate that adds little specific value, slightly reducing the conciseness score.

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?

This is a destructive operation (clearing/deleting files) with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral description. It doesn't explain what files would be affected, whether it's safe for the agent to run unbidden, what happens on success/failure, or what 'plan files' are. For a tool that permanently deletes project content, the description is under-specified and should include safety/reversibility context.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the schema leaves nothing to document. The description references 'Cursor plan files' and 'team standards' which adds some operational context, though it's thin. Since there are no parameters to explain, the baseline of 4 is appropriate — there's nothing missing in parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'automatically clear Cursor plan files from the project.' It identifies what the tool does clearly enough. However, it doesn't distinguish this from siblings well — the sibling list is development/task-oriented tools, and it's unclear how clearing plan files fits into that workflow. The purpose is clear but the broader role (system maintenance vs project work) is ambiguous.

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?

There's no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no context about when this cleanup should be triggered. 'Follows team standards for cleanup' is vague and offers no practical guidance about when an agent should invoke this versus other operations. The description implies a cleanup/maintenance role but never states when this is appropriate.

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