prune

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses exactly what is destroyed (files, not rows), the default-safe dry_run behavior, and the exclusion rule that unseen items are never touched. Gaps remain on irreversibility, required permissions, and what a dry_run listing returns, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with 'Maintenance:' to set context and the destructive action before the caveats. Every clause (rows stay, dry_run default, unseen exclusion) adds distinct information.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, both defaults, destructiveness scope, and the key exclusion rule. Missing only operational details such as reversibility and return contents of a dry run, which are minor for this complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does for both parameters: older_than_days is explained as a day threshold defaulting to the configured retention_days, and dry_run is explained as list-only mode defaulting to true. Only finer details (units, null behavior of older_than_days) are left implicit.

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 gives a concrete verb and object — 'delete the files of seen items older than older_than_days' — and immediately scopes it with 'rows stay' and 'Unseen items are never pruned.' The bare name 'prune' is ambiguous, but the text resolves it fully. It does not explicitly name a sibling for contrast, though no sibling appears to overlap.

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 'Maintenance:' prefix implies this is a housekeeping tool and the dry_run default of true signals the safe entry mode. However, it never states when to choose this over siblings like mark_seen or status, nor does it say what to do after a dry run before a real delete. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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