ssh_job_clean

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses what gets removed (finished or expired job workspaces) and where (~/.mcp_jobs/), but does not state irreversibility, that deletion is physical, or any permission requirements — the '物理删除' detail lives only in the schema.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and its scope, with the target path appended. No wasted clauses, though it is terse enough to leave behavioral gaps.

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 simple, zero-required-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and target directory but omits irreversibility and permission context, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 all three parameters are already well documented (jobId targeting, maxAgeDays threshold with default 7, connectionId defaulting to current). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that baseline.

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 (清理) plus resource (后台作业工作空间目录) and scope (已结束或过期), with the concrete location ~/.mcp_jobs/ named. It is distinguishable from ssh_job_kill and ssh_job_status, though it does not explicitly reference those siblings.

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 states no when-to-use conditions or alternatives. The choice between targeted cleanup (jobId) and bulk expiry cleanup is only visible in the schema, not in the description. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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