cleanup_build_logs

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

With no annotations, the description fully describes the tool's behavior: it performs two actions—deleting logs older than max_age_days and trimming the oldest until under max_total_mb. This is transparent about the destructive nature and the algorithm, though it does not mention permissions or side effects.

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?

Two sentences totaling 18 words, with the primary action stated first. Every word is necessary and no redundancy. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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's simplicity (no output schema, 2 parameters with full schema coverage), the description covers the main behavior adequately. It does not explain return values, but for a cleanup operation this is acceptable. The sibling tools list confirms it's distinct.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions, but the description adds value by explaining the sequence of actions (age-based then size-based) and that trimming targets the oldest logs. This provides context beyond what the schema individual descriptions convey.

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 tool's purpose: 'Delete old build logs to reclaim disk space.' It specifies the exact operations (removing logs by age and trimming by size) and the resource (build logs). This distinguishes it from siblings like build_status or start_build, which have different functions.

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 for disk space reclamation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., manual deletion or other cleanup tools). No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.

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