Project Tessera

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what the tool detects, it doesn't describe how suggestions are generated, whether they're actionable, what permissions are needed, or what the output format looks like. For a tool that analyzes workspace content, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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?

The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and primary usage guideline. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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?

Given that there's an output schema (which means return values are documented elsewhere), the description covers the basic purpose and usage timing adequately. However, for a tool that analyzes workspace content, more context about what constitutes 'cleanup suggestions' and how they're presented would be beneficial, especially with no annotations and an undocumented parameter.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'path' parameter. The description doesn't explain what the path parameter does, whether it's optional (it has default: null), or how it affects the cleanup suggestions. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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's purpose: 'Generate cleanup suggestions for the workspace' with specific detection targets (root-level files, backup files, large files, empty directories). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on cleanup suggestions rather than other operations like search, import, or organization. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'organize_files' which might have some 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 description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Call this tool first when cleanup is requested.' This gives clear context for its primary use case. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools, particularly 'organize_files' which might be relevant for file management.

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