Maintenance and cleanup operations

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description explicitly describes destructive actions like 'Remove expired Files API entries from database' and 'Clean old local files'. This is a direct annotation contradiction, which the rubric requires scoring as 1, and the description also fails to disclose irreversibility or safety implications beyond the dry_run parameter in the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with a clear purpose, followed by a well-structured bullet list of operations. The phrase 'following workflows.md patterns' is somewhat ambiguous and could be clearer, but overall every line adds useful information without unnecessary verbosity.

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 has four parameters, multiple operation modes, and no output schema, the description covers the operation choices reasonably well. However, it relies on a vague external reference, does not describe return values or success/failure behavior, and the readOnlyHint contradiction makes the safety profile incomplete for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 input schema already fully documents operation, dry_run, keep_count, and max_age_hours. The description adds a helpful mapping of operation names to behaviors, but does not provide extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already gives, so it stays at the baseline.

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 names a specific resource ('maintenance operations') and enumerates each concrete sub-operation with a verb and object, such as 'Remove expired Files API entries from database' and 'Check Files API storage usage'. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like generate_image and upload_file, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 this tool is for maintenance and cleanup tasks, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus sibling tools or when to prefer one operation over another. The reference to 'following workflows.md patterns' gives some context but is vague and does not provide concrete selection criteria or exclusions.

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