cleanup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that worktrees and branches are deleted, but says nothing about irreversibility, what happens to unmerged work, or that the operation is scoped only to artifacts this server created — the destructive consequence detail lives only in the schema's force field.

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 action verb first and no filler. The packed parenthetical carries two modes but stays readable; nothing is wasted.

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, zero-annotation tool with no output schema and only 33% parameter coverage, the description omits critical context: reversibility, safety prerequisites, and whether both selectors can be combined. It is insufficient for an agent to invoke this safely.

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 coverage is 33%: force is documented, while job_id and older_than_days are bare. The description partially compensates by mapping the two selection modes ('de un job, o más viejos que N días') to those undocumented params, but adds no detail on mutual exclusivity or precedence between them.

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 specific verb (Elimina) and resource (worktrees y ramas colmena/*), plus a scope qualifier (creados por este servidor). It clearly distinguishes what gets cleaned from general-purpose siblings like cancel or merge, though it never names an alternative tool 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 only implied: the parenthetical reveals two selection modes (by job_id, or by older_than_days), which tells the agent how to target cleanup. It never says when cleanup should be run instead of cancel or merge, nor any preconditions (e.g., branch must be merged first).

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