clean_project

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 behavior. It states the action ('Cleans the build directory') but does not mention side effects, such as whether the action is destructive, whether it affects derived data, or whether it requires a specific project state. The brevity leaves the agent without important safety context for a potentially destructive operation.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is concise and front-loaded with the action, containing no unnecessary words or filler.

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 simple tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the primary purpose. However, the lack of behavioral details (e.g., destructiveness, dependency on the active project) and the absence of annotations leave some contextual gaps. The description is adequate but not rich enough to fully compensate for the missing annotation support.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The schema is sufficient, but the description does not enhance understanding of the parameters' purpose or interactions.

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 action ('Cleans') and the target ('the build directory for the active Xcode project'). It distinguishes itself from related tools like clean_swift_package (which targets Swift packages) and build_project (which builds rather than cleans).

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 implies the tool is used for cleaning Xcode build artifacts, and the phrase 'active Xcode project' distinguishes it from Swift package cleaning. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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