cleanup_artifacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action (delete) and a summary output (reclaimed capacity), but does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, how 'managed' is defined, what happens to active artifacts, or how the optional parameters affect behavior.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the main action and then the reported outcome. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with two optional parameters and no annotations. It leaves ambiguity about the meaning and purpose of 'command_id' and 'idempotency_key', and does not clarify the operational context or side effects of the cleanup action.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the two schema parameters, but it does not. Neither 'command_id' nor 'idempotency_key' is mentioned, leaving the agent with no semantic understanding of these optional fields.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('expired managed artifacts'), and adds an outcome ('report reclaimed capacity'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like delete_artifact, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 word 'expired' implies the tool is for cleaning up artifacts that have passed their expiration, which gives some contextual guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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