clean_proj

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'cleans' (implying destructive deletion) and mentions a required parameter, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as what exactly gets deleted, whether the operation is reversible, permission requirements, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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 efficiently structured with two sentences: one stating the purpose and requirement, and one providing an example. Every sentence adds value, though the example could be more concise. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context about what 'cleans' entails (e.g., which files are removed, safety warnings), expected outcomes, or error conditions. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for the behavioral transparency gap in this case.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by emphasizing 'Requires projectPath' and providing an example, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or semantics beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('cleans') and target resources ('build products and intermediate files from a project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'clean_ws' (which likely cleans workspaces) and 'swift_package_clean' (which cleans Swift packages). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'clean_ws' or 'swift_package_clean', nor does it mention prerequisites beyond the required parameter. It lacks context about typical scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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