clean_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool cleans temporary files to resolve build issues, but omits details like whether the cleanup is destructive, reversible, or requires permissions. The description lacks depth on what gets deleted and side effects.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and resources, the second explains the benefit. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 is adequate for a tool with complete schema documentation but lacks behavioral context (e.g., reversibility, impact on source files). Given no output schema or annotations, it could be more complete on safety and side effects.

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%, so the input schema fully explains each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond summarizing the tool's action; thus, it meets the baseline of 3 without exceeding.

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 states the tool cleans build caches, DerivedData, and temporary files. It specifies a specific verb ('clean') and resource ('project build caches'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like build_app or run_linter by focusing on cleanup to resolve build issues.

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 implies usage when 'build issues caused by stale caches' occur, providing context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage boundaries.

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