timps_privacy_cleaner

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key safe behavior: the tool audits and returns a cleanup manifest, and 'no data is deleted until user reviews.' This effectively communicates a read-only/consent-gated nature. It could further state whether it writes any files or changes any settings, but the non-destructive promise is strong.

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 tight sentences. The first states the purpose and scope; the second describes the output and safety guarantee. No filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 zero-parameter audit tool with no annotations or output schema, the description gives enough context: what is audited, what is returned (cleanup manifest), and the crucial non-destructive behavior. It doesn't detail the manifest format, but for an agent selecting and invoking the tool, the provided information is sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The description compensates by clarifying the audit scope (specific browsers and permission categories), which is the only semantic information an agent needs.

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 specific verbs ('count', 'list') and identifies exact resources (cookies per Chrome/Firefox/Edge/Brave, macOS app permissions for camera/mic/location/contacts). It clearly establishes itself as a privacy audit/cleanup-manifest tool, distinguishing it from the many sibling tools focused on security, compliance, or system maintenance.

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 provides clear context: use this tool for a privacy audit of browser cookies and macOS permissions, and it explicitly notes that no data is deleted until the user reviews the manifest. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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