cocos_clean_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly describes the destructive nature of the operation (removing directories) and the performance implication of 'all' level being slow. However, it doesn't mention permissions needed, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens if the tool fails mid-operation.

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 efficient - three sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the default behavior, and the third explains the 'all' option with its consequence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining what gets removed at different levels and the performance trade-off. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, success indicators, or what happens to the project state after cleaning. Given the complexity (destructive operation), it could be more 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well for the 'level' parameter by explaining what 'default' and 'all' mean in practical terms. However, it provides no information about the 'project_path' parameter beyond what the schema title suggests. The description adds significant value for one of the two parameters.

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 specific action ('Clean build artifacts') and resource ('build artifacts'), with explicit scope details about different cleaning levels. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are all about adding/creating/modifying assets rather than cleaning.

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 different levels: 'default' for basic cleaning, 'all' for comprehensive cleaning with the warning that it's slow due to re-importing assets. This gives clear context for choosing between the two main usage scenarios.

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