janitor_scan_orphans

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does define the detection heuristics (PPID=1, dead parent, zombie), which is genuinely useful, and "scan" implies a non-mutating read. It does not state that nothing is terminated, whether elevated permissions are needed, or how long the scan takes — notable gaps for a process tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the target class stated first and the concrete process categories packed into an efficient colon list. Every clause earns its place; no filler.

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 zero-parameter detector with an output schema available to explain return values, the description covers what to expect it to look for. The only shortfall is the unstated relationship to janitor_sweep_processes (i.e., that this tool reports but does not remediate), which an agent should not have to guess.

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 tool takes no parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds nothing about inputs because there are none.

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?

States a concrete verb ("scan") and resource ("this user's processes") plus the exact target class (suspected orphaned development workers) and enumerates the categories: headless browsers, agent runners, detached compilers, python sub-workers. It implicitly separates itself from janitor_sweep_processes (detection vs. action), but never names or contrasts with a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the word "scan" and the qualifier "suspected" signal this is a detection-only step you run when you suspect leaked workers. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no pointer to janitor_sweep_processes as the follow-up action tool, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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