Rmdir

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does surface two real behavioral facts: removal is limited to empty directories and to paths under the configured current directory. It says nothing about failure behavior on a non-empty directory, permissions, or reversibility, which is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single sentence with the verb and both constraints front-loaded. Nothing redundant, nothing padded.

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 output schema covers return values, so the description needn't explain them. For a destructive one-parameter tool with no annotations, however, the description leaves out error conditions (non-empty directory), permission requirements, and path format, which an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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?

One parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the schema says only that 'path' is a required string. The description partially compensates by constraining the path to be beneath the configured current directory, but gives no format guidance (relative vs absolute, trailing slash, dot-paths).

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?

Specific verb (Remove) plus resource (directory), with two scoping qualifiers: 'one' and 'empty'. That implicitly separates it from deleteFile (files) and from any recursive removal, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 'empty directory' and 'beneath the configured current directory' clauses function as preconditions, which is implied usage guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over cmdshell, deleteFile, or a recursive alternative.

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