rush_ship_clean

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It states the high-level cleanup intent but does not disclose that this likely deletes directories/caches, whether deletion is irreversible, or how the dry_run parameter affects execution. This is a significant transparency gap for a potentially destructive tool.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and target, and every word contributes to the core meaning.

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 cleanup operation with no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the dry_run safety mechanism, what specifically counts as scratch/build caches, or the expected effect of the operation. The presence of an output schema helps, but the missing behavioral context is important for safe invocation.

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 schema has only one optional boolean parameter, dry_run, with 0% schema description coverage. The description never mentions dry_run or explains what a dry run means in this context, so an agent must infer semantics from the parameter name alone. The description should have compensated for the missing schema documentation.

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 identifies the action ('Clean'), the target ('scratch directories and build caches'), and the timing ('before release'). It is specific enough to distinguish this from the many other rush_* siblings by topic and scope, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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?

'Before release' implies when this should be used, and the tool name helps identify a release-prep context. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to similar release-related siblings like rush_release or rush_ship_gate.

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