latex_clean

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden for this destructive operation. It does state that files are removed and limits the scope to 'normal LatexMk-generated products,' but it never explains which file types count as normal products, whether project_dir is affected, or whether any confirmation or safety mechanism exists.

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 sentence with no filler, the action verb is front-loaded, and the key restriction ('only normal LatexMk-generated products') appears immediately. It earns its place despite being terse.

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 tool with no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and unknown output-schema details, this description leaves important gaps: it does not enumerate the removed artifacts, explain 'normal,' or clarify how the main file and project directory are resolved. The output schema may describe return values, but it cannot compensate for missing operational semantics.

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 needed to clarify the parameters. It only loosely aligns with main_tex through the phrase 'selected main file,' and it provides no explanation of project_dir, path resolution, or what happens when parameters are left at their defaults.

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 uses a clear verb ('Remove') and resource ('normal LatexMk-generated products') and scopes the action to the selected main file. This distinguishes it from the sibling build/find/environment tools, though the term 'normal' is somewhat ambiguous and 'selected' is not formally defined.

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 this tool is used for cleaning up LaTeXMk build products, and the word 'only' hints at a conservative cleanup behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over latex_build or what situations warrant caution, so usage guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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