driftguard_clean_bloat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive operation, yet it only asserts that removal is 'safe' without explaining irreversibility, whether a snapshot or rollback is expected first, what the deletion scope is (whole workspace? a path?), or what is reported back. The parenthetical cache-directory examples are the only concrete behavioral detail.

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?

One compact sentence with the deletion scope front-loaded and concrete examples attached. The opening phrase 'Spazzino intelligente del workspace' is mild marketing framing that does not carry information, but the sentence as a whole is efficient.

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 destructive, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the definition is too thin: it omits target scope, whether deletion is permanent, and whether the agent should run the dry run first. An agent could invoke it and irreversibly delete files based on this text alone.

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?

There is a single optional parameter, dryRun, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the preview-only behavior. The description never refers to dryRun or to a preview mode, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource set: it removes temporary files, cache directories (.pytest_cache, .cache, .tmp) and orphan log files from the workspace. The concrete directory examples make the scope unambiguous and separate it from siblings like driftguard_compress_log or driftguard_scan_secrets, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives such as driftguard_scan_secrets or driftguard_compress_log that also touch logs and workspace artifacts. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the cleanup step in a workflow.

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