shadowgraph_purge_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds concrete behavioral context beyond this: 'no storage, journal, or signal change, and no file is written.' This reinforces the read-only nature with specific guarantees.

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, purposeful sentences. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by usage guidance and explicit read-only guarantees. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 tool is simple: one parameter, clear annotations, and an output schema present. The description covers purpose, usage timing, sibling relationship, and side-effect guarantees. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its single 'project' parameter, so the schema already documents the requirement clearly. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond restating that it uses the 'same project name' as shadowgraph_purge, which is useful but not substantial.

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 ('Count') and a clear resource ('what a purge of one project would remove'). It explicitly names the sibling it precedes (shadowgraph_purge), making the tool's purpose distinct and immediately identifiable.

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 explicitly says 'Run this before shadowgraph_purge,' providing a direct usage directive with the relevant alternative named. It also clarifies the relationship: preview first, then purge with the same project name.

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