svn_cleanup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions cleaning interrupted operations but doesn't detail what this entails (e.g., whether it's destructive, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like removing temporary files). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Spanish that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could benefit from slightly more detail given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 complexity (a mutation operation for cleaning interrupted SVN operations), the absence of annotations and output schema, and the description's limited behavioral details, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'cleaning' entails, potential impacts, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.

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 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('Ruta específica a limpiar'), so the schema already documents the parameter meaning. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3 as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 the purpose ('Limpiar working copy de operaciones interrumpidas') which translates to 'Clean working copy of interrupted operations', providing a specific verb ('clean') and resource ('working copy'). However, it doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like 'svn_revert' or 'svn_status' which might handle similar cleanup scenarios, leaving the differentiation vague.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'svn_revert' or 'svn_status' is provided. The description implies usage for interrupted operations but doesn't specify contexts, exclusions, or prerequisites, offering minimal direction for selection among sibling tools.

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