hop_clean

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 is a deletion (destructive) operation yet the description only vaguely reassures 'safer than global clean' without disclosing irreversibility, whether deletion is confirmed, what happens on glob mismatch, or any rate/permission constraints. The one behavioral hint (maxMatches safety limit) in the schema is not echoed or explained.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by what it deletes and the safety differentiator. No filler or redundancy.

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, multi-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits how a worktree is targeted (slug/ticket/branch/worktreePath alternatives), whether deletion is reversible, and how it differs from git_worktree_clean. An agent could invoke it but lacks the context to do so 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters, including globs examples and the maxMatches safety limit. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 (clean) and resource (scratch files in a hop/git worktree), and distinguishes from a global clean. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling 'git_worktree_clean' — both appear to operate on worktrees, and the description never explains how hop_clean differs from that sibling, which matters for an agent choosing between them.

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: clean scratch files in a single worktree rather than globally, and asserts it is 'safer than global clean'. But it never explicitly says when to prefer hop_clean over the sibling git_worktree_clean, and there is no guidance on when not to use it. Implied usage only.

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