clean_repository

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It signals an automated mutation but does not say whether it deletes files, modifies histories, creates commits or pull requests, requires permissions, or is reversible. The word 'automáticamente' adds only minimal behavioral context.

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 short sentence with no filler and is front-loaded with the action. It is easy to parse, though the brevity is also the reason behavioral and usage details are missing.

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 no output schema and no annotations, and whose name suggests a potentially destructive cleanup operation, this description is incomplete. An agent cannot predict what will happen to the repository, what the result will look like, or how this relates to a review or improvement workflow.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond referring to the repository, but it also does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation.

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 states a clear action ('limpia y estructura') and a clear resource ('un repositorio'), so an agent can identify this as a repository cleanup/organization tool. However, it does not specify what 'cleaning' or 'structuring' concretely involves, and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool apply_improvements.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus review_repository, apply_improvements, generate_readme, or the other siblings. There are no prerequisites, no workflow context, and no exclusions. The only usage signal is the verb itself, which is not enough for confident tool selection.

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