prune

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. 'Force prune' implies destructive mutation, but there is no detail on whether it affects other data, requires confirmation, or is irreversible. The term 'Force' suggests aggressive action, but no elaboration.

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?

Extremely concise at four words, front-loading the action. Every word is meaningful, but the brevity sacrifices context, earning a 4 rather than 5.

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?

With only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the tool's role. It lacks explanation of what 'tangential links' are and when pruning is needed, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'context' parameter, which is well-described. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (prune) and target (inactive tangential links). It is a specific verb+resource pair, though 'tangential links' could be more precisely defined. It partially distinguishes from siblings like 'forgotten' but lacks explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'forgotten' or 'dedup'. No mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. The minimal description leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage context.

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