clean_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of revealing side effects. 'Clean build artifacts' implies deletion or removal, but it does not state what exactly is deleted, whether it is safe to run, or if it has any irreversible consequences. This is a significant gap for a potentially destructive operation.

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 fluff, which is concise. It is front-loaded with the primary action. However, it lacks any elaboration on scope or effects, which might make it too terse for a destructive operation.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description must convey the full behavior. It only states 'clean build artifacts' without detailing what is removed, whether it is irreversible, whether it affects the entire project or just the specified platform, or what the outcome is. The tool is likely destructive (cleaning) but no warnings or side effects are mentioned. Hence, incomplete for safe usage.

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%: the only parameter 'platform' has a description 'Target platform' in the schema itself. The tool description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so it provides minimal added value. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the 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 indicates the tool's purpose: to clean build artifacts from the project. The verb 'clean' and resource 'build artifacts' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling build tools (e.g., build_target, package_project) which create artifacts. However, it does not specify what specific artifact types are cleaned (e.g., intermediate files, caches), leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or cases where this should not be used (e.g., avoid during active builds). With many sibling tools for building and cooking, the description lacks direction for an agent to decide when this is the appropriate choice.

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