clean

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a destructive operation ('Clean up' suggests deletion) but doesn't clarify whether this is reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like rate limits. The example hints at default values but lacks explicit warnings about data loss or system impact.

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—just two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with a practical usage example, making it easy to parse and apply. Every element serves a clear function.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with no annotations or output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'clean up' entails (e.g., deletion, archiving), what happens to the messages, or what the agent should expect as a result. For a tool that likely modifies system state, this leaves critical gaps in understanding.

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 input schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by restating the parameters in the usage example without providing additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Clean up') and resource ('old messages'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling alternatives like 'ack' or 'check' that might also manage messages, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role in the toolset.

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 a usage example but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ack' or 'check'. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual factors that would help an agent decide between this and other message-related tools in the sibling list.

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