latexmk_clean

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explains that the tool deletes auxiliary files, optionally output files, and uses latexmk -c/-C. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., working_dir existence), error conditions, or that deletion is irreversible—though 'removes output files' conveys destructiveness.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and the two modes. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the two cleaning modes and their effects. It could be improved by noting return behavior or failure scenarios, but the essential information for invoking the tool correctly is present and clear.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., job_name, clean_all, working_dir semantics are already in the schema). Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: cleaning LaTeX build artifacts in a directory, with a specific verb ('Clean') and resource. It distinguishes between two modes (auxiliary files only vs. auxiliary + output files), which also differentiates it from sibling compile/check/watch tools.

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 usage when LaTeX build artifacts need to be removed, and explains the two modes (auxiliary vs. output files). However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like latexmk_compile or latexmk_check, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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