clean_case

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive action, specifies what is kept, and states the confirm=true requirement. However, it does not mention irreversibility, what happens if confirm is false, or any error 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 two concise sentences with no fluff. The main action and preserved directories are front-loaded, and the confirmation requirement is stated clearly.

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?

The tool is simple, and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers the main effect, preserved paths, and confirmation flag. It could note irreversibility or how this differs from delete_case, but it is largely complete for its scope.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'confirm' parameter by requiring true, but 'case_name' is left self-evident from the tool name. This is partial but not full compensation for the missing 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 action ('Remove time directories and post-processing output') and the resource, while listing what is preserved ('0/, constant/, system/'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_case, which would remove the entire case.

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 implies when to use (cleaning a case after simulation/post-processing) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like delete_case. The confirm=true requirement is a precondition, not a usage guideline.

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