clean_workspace

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 clearly explains dry_run safety behavior, the difference between trash and permanent deletion, and that a clean report is returned. While it could elaborate on what 'safety checks' entail or the irreversibility of permanent mode, the core destructive behavior is disclosed.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a one-sentence summary, a prominent safety warning, a compact Args list, and a Returns note. Every sentence contributes directly to correct usage, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 description covers all parameters, the default safety behavior, both deletion modes, and the return value, which is sufficient for invoking the tool. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not discuss tool-selection tradeoffs with siblings or define the 'non-secret artifacts matching criteria' any further, but these are secondary to correct invocation.

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 fully compensate, and it does. Every parameter—path, target_paths, artifact_types, mode, and dry_run—receives a meaningful explanation beyond the raw schema types and defaults. This gives an agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource, 'Clean reclaimable developer artifacts', making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like preview_cleanup or scan_workspace, but the resource and action are specific enough to avoid confusion.

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 gives clear operational guidance, especially the important dry_run default and the fact that explicit paths can be provided. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus preview_cleanup, scan_workspace, or other sibling tools, and no exclusions are stated. Usage context is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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