prune_subagents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly discloses the destructive nature ('delete'), explains the default retention behavior, and highlights the dry_run safety feature. Some details like permanence or confirmation are missing, but the description is more informative than typical mutation tools.

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, front-loaded with the core action and quickly moves to overrides and dry_run. Every clause is meaningful and there is no redundancy.

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?

The description gives a good high-level understanding but lacks parameter-level detail and expected output/return behavior. Since there is no output schema, more explanation could help. However, the core purpose and safety preview are covered, making it minimally 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains dry_run and the concept of overrides, but does not clarify the meanings of keep_last, max_age_days, or compress_after_days. This leaves significant ambiguity for parameter usage.

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 action ('Compress / delete') and resource ('old terminal runs'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on subagent lifecycle. It also mentions the retention config, adding context about default behavior.

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 explains when to use the tool (for cleanup based on retention config) and when to use overrides or dry_run. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no direct alternative exists among siblings, so the context is clear enough.

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