works_cleanup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and does so well: it discloses that this is a destructive file removal, that only registered download paths are accepted and all others are refused, and that items open in the editor are skipped and reported in kept_open. The main omission is that irreversibility (no trash/undo) is only implied by the verb, not stated.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the scope of deletion, then the omit-paths default, then the open-window caveat and retry instruction. Dense but every sentence carries operational content; only the parenthetical directory detail borders on redundant.

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?

For a destructive, single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers scope, refusal of unregistered paths, the bulk-delete default, and the kept_open return field an agent must inspect. What's missing is only the reversibility/permission story, which is a modest gap given how much else is specified.

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 coverage is 100% and the single paths parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its provenance (works_download/works_open project_path) and the omit-means-all behavior. The description restates that same semantics rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (删除/delete) and a precisely bounded resource: project works downloaded via works_download/works_open, including the app temp directory and dest copies. It names the sibling tools that produce those artifacts and scopes deletion to registered downloads only, which lets an agent separate it from generic siblings like resource_delete_unused or project_close without opening the schema.

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 concrete operating guidance: omit paths to delete everything, and if an editor window is open the item is preserved and returned in kept_open, so re-call after closing the window. That covers the main decision points and the retry path, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with resource_delete_unused or state what to do for paths outside the registry beyond 'rejected'.

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