timps_file_organizer

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden, and it handles the most critical behavior well by stating 'dry-run — no files moved until user approves.' This clearly warns the agent and user that the tool does not execute changes itself. It doesn't cover edge cases or side effects like whether the script file is written to disk, but the core safety is transparent.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main action, enumerates specific clutter types, and immediately states the resulting outputs and safety. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple, one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the scanning scope, detection targets, generated outputs, and the dry-run safety behavior. It could be slightly more complete by describing the format/location of the generated plan and script, but it is sufficient for an agent to know when and how to invoke it.

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 already fully describes the one optional `path` parameter, including its default scope of `~/Downloads` and `~/Desktop`, so the description adds no new parameter-level detail. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies what the tool does: scans Downloads and Desktop for clutter such as duplicates, large files, and unnamed junk. It also names the concrete outputs (folder organisation plan, move script) and clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling tools by focusing on user-directory organization.

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 makes the intended use obvious: run this tool when needing to identify clutter and prepare an organization plan for Downloads/Desktop. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the scope and output are clear enough for selection.

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