builtin__bg_task_cleanup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly reveals the destructive nature ('Remove') and the specific task states affected, which is good. However, it does not mention potential irreversibility, whether the removal is permanent across sessions, or any return value. For a cleanup operation, these details are relevant and would improve the agent's understanding of consequences.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose immediately, and the second explains the optional parameter. There is no redundant information, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's behavior. It is appropriately front-loaded with the primary verb and resource.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides enough information to use the tool correctly. It states what is removed and how to scope the removal by age. However, it does not mention the return value or behavior when no tasks match, but this is a minor gap for a simple cleanup operation. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's scope.

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 sole parameter maxAgeMs is explicitly explained: 'Optionally specify maxAgeMs to only remove tasks older than the given milliseconds.' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema (which only gives type and bounds). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description effectively compensates by fully explaining the parameter's purpose. No further elaboration is needed for such a simple parameter.

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 function: 'Remove completed, failed, or cancelled tasks from memory.' It uses a specific verb ('Remove') with a clear resource ('tasks') and qualifies the scope (completed/failed/cancelled), which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'builtin__bg_task_cancel' that target running tasks. The optional maxAgeMs filter adds further clarity about the intended cleanup behavior.

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 indicates what the tool does and mentions the optional maxAgeMs parameter for filtering by age. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'builtin__bg_task_cancel' or 'builtin__bg_task_list'. The usage is implied (cleanup of already-finished tasks) but not directly contrasted with sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity for an agent selecting between cleanup and cancellation.

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