ReSharper Cleanup Code

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false, so the risk profile is known. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the tool loads the files' projects and references before rewriting, which explains cost and why batching matters — context the annotations cannot convey.

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, both front-loaded and dense with useful information: the first defines the operation, the second explains cost and the batching rule. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

For a destructive, mutating tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, cost behavior, and batching well. It does not say what is returned or how failures relate to partial rewrites, a minor gap given the schema already documents pre-write failure handling.

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 schema already documents files, profile, and solutionPath thoroughly, including wildcard and separator behavior. The description only reinforces the batching aspect of 'files'; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (run cleanup) and resource (files), and enumerates exactly what it fixes: formatting, code style, unused usings, var usage, modifier order, braces. It is clearly a rewrite-in-place operation, distinct from a read-only sibling like resharper_inspect, though the sibling is not named.

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?

Gives explicit operational guidance: 'make one call per task with every modified file in it' tells the agent how to batch rather than call repeatedly. It lacks an explicit when-not/alternative statement (e.g., use inspect to preview), but the usage context is clear.

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