superdesign_cleanup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the cleanup action without detailing behavioral traits. It doesn't disclose whether this is destructive (likely yes, but not confirmed), permission requirements, error handling, rate limits, or what 'clean up' entails (e.g., deletion, archiving). The 'dry_run' parameter hints at safety, but the description itself lacks explicit warnings or operational context.

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 that front-loads the core purpose without fluff. Every word earns its place by specifying action, target, and criteria concisely, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 annotations and no output schema, this is a potentially destructive tool with 4 parameters. The description is too minimal—it doesn't cover safety aspects (beyond the implied 'dry_run'), expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it interacts with sibling tools. For a cleanup operation, more context on behavior and risks is needed to be complete.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond implying age and count are key criteria, but doesn't explain interactions between parameters (e.g., if both max_age_days and max_count apply) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most semantics.

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 states the action ('clean up') and target resource ('old design files'), specifying criteria ('based on age and count limits'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'superdesign_list' or 'superdesign_delete' by focusing on automated cleanup with specific thresholds. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'superdesign_delete' which might handle individual deletions.

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 usage when needing to remove old files automatically, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'superdesign_delete' for manual deletion or 'superdesign_list' for inspection. It mentions criteria (age/count) but lacks context about prerequisites, dependencies, or exclusions.

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