tidy_cleanup

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is '[NOT IMPLEMENTED YET]' and that results are ranked by impact over effort, not by count. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what happens if invoked, or any side effects or permission requirements.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the critical implementation status, then lists the work categories, then explains the ranking rule. Every phrase earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys the core concept and categories, and it honestly signals that the tool is not ready. However, it leaves out what a worklist item actually looks like, how results are returned, and how this tool fits into the tidy_* workflow, which an agent would need if the tool were implemented.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description instead orients the agent on the expected output content, which is the relevant semantic gap for a no-input tool. This matches the zero-parameter baseline.

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 names a specific deliverable: a ranked worklist of specific cleanup categories (ghost variables, dead styles, unused tokens, raw colors, deprecation candidates). It is not a tautology and gives concrete content, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'generates' or 'returns' and does not contrast itself with the many tidy_* siblings.

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 is given for when to use tidy_cleanup versus alternatives such as tidy_plan, tidy_apply, or tidy_health. The description implies it is for cleanup worklist generation, but it never states conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent gets little help choosing among siblings.

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