wsl_destroy_all_temp

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'tear down.' It clarifies the scope ('this session') and return format (JSON with destroyed list and count), adding value beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention side effects like stopping running processes or deleting files, which would be beneficial.

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: one sentence for purpose and one for returns. No redundant information, front-loaded with the action. Every word serves a purpose.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema (specified in description), the description covers purpose, scope, and return format. It lacks details on idempotency (though annotation hints true) or potential impact on currently running distros, but is mostly complete for a simple cleanup tool.

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?

There are no parameters; the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline 4 is appropriate as no additional semantic context is required.

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 'Tear down every throwaway distro provisioned in this session,' using specific verb and resource. Among sibling tools like wsl_destroy (for individual distros) and wsl_list_temp (listing), this tool is uniquely identified for mass cleanup, fulfilling purpose clarity at the highest level.

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 implies use for session cleanup but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over wsl_destroy (for single distro) or when not to use it (e.g., if only one temp distro needs removal). No guidance on context or alternatives is provided, making it merely adequate.

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