Cleanup File

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

Annotations indicate idempotency (idempotentHint=true) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). Description adds that dry_run is available for preview, making it safe to test. However, it doesn't mention file backup or undo behavior, which is acceptable given idempotency annotation.

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?

Description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by parameter list. The list format is clear. Minor waste: some descriptions are truncated (e.g., 'Trailing whitespace' could be more descriptive).

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 good schema coverage and annotations, the description is complete enough for a cleanup tool. It explains all operations and includes dry_run. No output schema, but the tool is simple and output is likely a success message or diff, which may be inferred.

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 covers all 6 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description repeats parameter info from schema, adding no new semantics beyond what schema provides. Baseline 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 it cleans up source code files with specific operations (BOM, NUL bytes, trailing whitespace, line endings). It distinguishes from siblings like cc_fix_encoding and cc_organize_imports by focusing on whitespace and byte-level cleanup.

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 lists operations but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., cc_fix_encoding for encoding issues). No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.

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