agent_memory_cleanup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clarifies that active spawned child agents are not killed, but it does not disclose other key behaviors such as side effects, reversibility, or what the 'safe cleanup path' entails. The force parameter remains unexplained, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 with three sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives a usage hint, and the third clarifies a key boundary. No extraneous information is present.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description is incomplete. It fails to document the force parameter and does not fully describe the cleanup behavior, such as what 'safe cleanup path' does or when force is appropriate. This leaves significant gaps for an agent using the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain all parameters. It only explains dry_run ('Set dry_run=True to inspect the plan first'), leaving json_output and force completely undocumented. This is insufficient for an agent to understand how to use all parameters effectively.

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 purpose: trimming ThreadKeeper memory and cleaning orphan/over-limit server processes. It provides a specific verb and resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like memory_guard_reclaim.

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 some usage guidance: 'By default this applies the safe cleanup path' and suggests using dry_run to inspect the plan. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to alternatives, and does not explain the force parameter.

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