boss_clean

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does identify the destructive target — expired caches and temporary files — and the dry_run parameter in the schema signals a non-destructive preview option. However, it does not warn about permanence, side effects, or permissions, which prevents a higher score.

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 core purpose is stated in a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The only structural issue is the duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' label in the availability bracket, which is minor clutter but keeps it from a perfect score.

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 two-parameter utility with no output schema, the description and schema together are sufficient for basic invocation. However, the lack of any destructive-operation warning or expected return behavior means it is only minimally complete.

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%, with both parameters ('all' and 'dry_run') already documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('清理' / clean) and a concrete resource ('过期缓存和临时文件' / expired cache and temporary files), which makes the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is also clearly distinct from the other boss_* siblings, none of which cover cache or temporary-file cleanup.

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 role and platform availability constraints, which help an agent know who can use the tool. However, it does not explicitly explain when to choose boss_clean over alternatives or state exclusions, leaving usage context mostly implied.

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