clean

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies exactly what is deleted (ChromaDB collection, .codebaxing/ data) and what is preserved (ignore.json). The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description is consistent with those, adding useful detail about the scope of destruction.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific details, then a use case. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary information. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, what it deletes/preserves, and when to use it. It does not mention the return value, but for a destructive cleanup operation, a return value is less critical. Slight gap in not describing the response format, but overall sufficient.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'path' with a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. According to the guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 as cleaning all indexed data for a codebase, specifying what gets deleted (ChromaDB collection, .codebaxing/ data) and what is preserved (user config). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'index' (which creates indexes) and 'search' (which queries).

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use this to fix corrupted indexes or start fresh.' This provides clear context for appropriate usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, though the context strongly implies it is for cleanup scenarios.

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