cleanup_orphaned_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Clean up orphaned or unused project directories' but does not disclose that the tool may delete directories, what permissions are required, or whether changes are reversible. The schema notes that dry_run defaults to true for safety, but this is not mentioned in the description itself.

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 concise sentence. While it could be more informative, it is efficiently worded and front-loads the main action without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the criteria for orphaned projects (package.json or .git), the safety default of dry_run, or the possible outcome (actual deletion vs. listing). The input schema's description covers these details, but the description itself lacks completeness.

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 100% (each parameter has a description). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; for example, the dry_run parameter's purpose is already clear from the schema. The overall schema description gives some context about project detection criteria, but the description does not enrich parameter understanding.

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 'Clean up orphaned or unused project directories' clearly states the verb (clean up) and resource (orphaned project directories). It is specific enough to convey the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling cleanup tools like 'cleanup_stale_agents' or 'cleanup_stale_rooms'.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'run_comprehensive_cleanup'). The input schema description implies usage by mentioning that it looks for directories with package.json or .git, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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