Qdrant Data Cleanup Tool

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

The description 'removes old tool responses' aligns with the destructiveHint annotation. It adds context about the retention period and environment variable, going beyond the annotation's binary flag. However, it could be more transparent about irreversibility or the exact impact on the database. The description provides sufficient behavioral context for most use cases.

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 at two sentences. The first sentence communicates the core action and purpose, while the second provides relevant configuration context. Every sentence is meaningful and front-loaded, with no unnecessary information.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no nested objects, and an existing output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, why it's used, and how the retention period is configured. It does not explain the output or prerequisites like required permissions, but the output schema likely covers the return value. This is nearly complete for the tool's complexity level.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters, including a description for the single optional parameter (user_google_email). The tool description does not add any additional semantics for this parameter beyond what the schema provides. According to the rubric, when schema coverage is high, the description is not penalized for missing parameter details, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: to manually trigger cleanup of stale data older than the configured retention period. It identifies the specific resource (old tool responses) and the benefit (maintaining database performance). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools, as no other tool in the list has a similar cleanup focus.

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 explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It mentions that cleanup is manual and controlled by an environment variable, but does not clarify scenarios such as when automatic cleanup is insufficient or when to avoid using it. With no competing cleanup tools, the lack of explicit usage guidelines is acceptable but not ideal.

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