get_cleanup_suggestions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool analyzes directory size and file age, and the words 'suggestions' and 'recommend' strongly imply a non-destructive read operation. However, it never explicitly states that no files are deleted or modified, which is a meaningful gap given the existence of the perform_auto_cleanup sibling. No contradiction with annotations exists because none were provided.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and effective. However, the second sentence ('Analyzes current directory size and file age to recommend cleanup candidates') and the third sentence ('Help manage disk usage by identifying old or large files') substantially overlap, since old files correspond to file age and large files correspond to directory size. The redundancy means not every sentence earns its place.

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 simple tool with three optional, fully documented parameters, the core invocation details are present. Given there is no output schema, the description could reasonably be expected to hint at the return format (e.g., what a recommendation contains: file paths, sizes, warnings) and to state explicitly that the tool never mutates data. Those two gaps keep it from being 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 the schema already documents all three parameters with defaults and meanings. The description adds only high-level conceptual alignment (directory size maps to max_size_mb, file age maps to max_age_hours, warnings map to include_warnings) without new semantic detail, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 opening sentence, 'Get automatic cleanup suggestions for output file management,' names a specific verb, resource, and scope, and the following sentence states the concrete analysis criteria (current directory size, file age). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like perform_auto_cleanup and delete_execution_outputs by framing the output as 'suggestions' rather than actions, but it never names those alternatives or explicitly states that no cleanup is performed.

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?

'Helps manage disk usage by identifying old or large files' gives a reasonable usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, no stated exclusions, and no mention of the relevant siblings (perform_auto_cleanup, delete_execution_outputs) that would perform the actual deletion. The intended use is implied rather than spelled out.

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