prune

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

The description discloses that the tool archives or deletes content, aligning with the 'destructiveHint' annotation. It adds value by recommending a dry-run first to preview, which is a behavioral warning beyond the annotation. It doesn't detail reversibility or permissions, but the guidance is helpful.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose and essential guidance without extra words. It is clear, direct, and 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (five optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior and safety protocol. It doesn't explain archive semantics or return values, but the schema fills in parameter meanings, so the description is reasonably 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?

The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the input schema, which already has 100% coverage. Per the rubric, high schema coverage gives a baseline of 3, and the reference to 'mode=\'dry-run\'' is a usage tip rather than new parameter semantics.

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: 'Archive or delete stale vault content based on retention policies.' This provides a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like 'deprecate' or 'write' by focusing on pruning stale content.

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 gives clear usage context ('stale vault content based on retention policies') and a specific safety instruction ('Use mode=\'dry-run\' first to preview'). It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough for a 4.

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