cleanup_jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively conveys key behaviors: it removes artifacts and worktrees, and for non-terminal jobs it sends SIGTERM. It discloses the destructive nature and the need for force flag, though it could be more explicit about irreversibility.

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 two sentences, no unnecessary words, and front-loads the core purpose ('Remove terminal job logs/artifacts...'). Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, the force condition, and the scope of cleanup. It lacks details about return values or side effects on job state, but these are not critical given the absence of an output schema.

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 50% (only 'force' has a description). The description adds value by clarifying when 'force' is required ('Non-terminal jobs'), which goes beyond the schema's mention of SIGTERM. However, it adds no extra context for 'job_ids' beyond the schema structure. Overall, it moderately compensates for the partial schema coverage.

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 specific verb ('Remove') and clearly identifies the resource ('terminal job logs/artifacts and associated sandbox worktrees'). It also implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cancel_jobs' and 'job_status' by focusing on post-termination cleanup.

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 a conditional usage cue ('Non-terminal jobs require force=true') but does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives like 'cancel_jobs' or specify when not to use it. Usage guidance is 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.