ops_cleanup

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

With annotations already marking destructiveHint=true, the description adds value by specifying safety boundaries: it will not kill tmux panes or delete configured project roots. It also lists the cleanup scope. The only minor gap is ambiguity around 'orphan detection' (whether it deletes or just detects), but overall the behavioral context is solid.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second adds critical safety exclusions. It is concise, front-loaded, and every word earns its place. 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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core action and provides important safety disclaimers. It leaves some ambiguity about what 'aged' means and whether orphan detection results in deletion, but these are minor for an otherwise simple cleanup operation. It is largely complete but not exhaustive.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter details to explain. The description focuses on behavior, which is appropriate. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and this description fully meets that baseline.

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 identifies the tool as a cleanup operation with specific targets (expired artifacts, aged spool files, orphan detection). It also distinguishes it from potentially destructive actions by explicitly stating what it does not do, which is helpful given the tool name is generic. This clarity sets it apart from sibling tools like ops_status.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('safe cleanup') and lists the exact items handled. It also gives exclusions (does not kill tmux panes or delete project roots), which is a form of 'when not to use' guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or broader usage scenarios, so it stops short of a full 5.

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