prune

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions a safety mechanism (confirm/dry_run) and indicates destructiveness via 'Remove'. However, it omits explicit statements about permanence, what happens without confirm (likely a no-op), and the scoping role of product_root. The confirm/dry_run disclosure is valuable but not exhaustive.

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, only two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose immediately and then gives the usage requirement. There is no filler or redundant information, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description covers the main action and the confirm/dry_run behavior, but it fails to explain 'product_root' and does not distinguish from sibling 'remove', leaving some ambiguity about its exact scope. For a destructive tool, it is mostly complete but has identifiable gaps.

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 schema has 3 parameters with no individual descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by indicating 'confirm' and 'dry_run' are toggles for executing vs previewing the operation. However, 'product_root' is not mentioned, leaving its purpose and effect unexplained, so the description does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action: "Remove pastas órfãs e worktrees git fantasma" (remove orphan folders and ghost git worktrees). This is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like 'remove' which likely targets tasks/projects. It is not tautological and leaves no ambiguity.

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 prerequisite: "Exige confirm=true (ou dry_run)" (requires confirm=true or dry_run), which tells the caller how to invoke the tool safely. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to choose this over alternatives or provide exclusions, but the context is clear for when cleanup is needed.

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