clean_snapshots

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates this is a destructive operation ('purges') but doesn't disclose whether snapshots are permanently deleted, if there's any recovery mechanism, required permissions, or whether there are safeguards. It lacks details on the impact on the system (e.g., could it delete snapshots in use?).

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, concise sentence with no waste. It front-loads the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more descriptive without losing conciseness.

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 that this is a destructive maintenance tool with two parameters that control deletion criteria, and no annotations to clarify safety, the description lacks critical information about the deletion behavior, parameter interaction, and any safeguards. The output schema exists but is not shown; if it explains the outcome, that helps, but the description alone does not fully equip an agent to call this safely and correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, the description doesn't explain that max_age_days and max_total_mb are criteria for deletion. It only says 'old or excess' which loosely maps to age and size, but does not clarify how the parameters interact (e.g., are they both applied, or either/or?) or their units. The parameter names and defaults are self-explanatory, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but more explicit linkage would improve it.

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 states the action ('purges') and the resource ('backup snapshots'), and clarifies it removes 'old or excess' ones. However, it doesn't specify the exact criteria for what counts as 'old' or 'excess' beyond the parameters, and doesn't differentiate from any sibling tools (none appear directly related, but the description could be more precise about the scope).

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, conditions for invocation, or when to avoid using it. The agent is left to infer that it's for maintenance tasks, but there's no explicit context on when this should be called.

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