cleanup

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

The description only repeats the destructive nature already indicated by annotations (destructiveHint=true). It does not disclose further behavioral traits such as whether resources are deleted permanently, if confirmation is needed, or the scope of 'all managed resources'.

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 very concise at four words, but it sacrifices clarity. Every word earns its place, but it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 no output schema and only a single annotation, the description fails to provide sufficient context. It does not explain what 'managed resources' are, how they are identified, or the impact of the cleanup. The tool's role among many other destructive sibling tools is unclear.

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 are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given zero parameters. Baseline is 4 as per guidelines.

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 'Cleanup all managed resources' identifies a verb and a resource, but 'managed resources' is vague and does not distinguish from sibling tools like kubectl_delete which also delete resources. It lacks specificity about what constitutes 'managed' resources.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given its destructive nature (annotated as destructiveHint), there is no explicit warning or context about when not to use it or what prerequisites exist.

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