clean_project

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Clean' implies destructive action, but the description does not state whether files are deleted, whether the operation is reversible, or if special permissions are required. This lack of detail is a significant gap 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 one concise, front-loaded sentence that clearly communicates the core action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with minimal parameters, containing no fluff or repetition.

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?

Although the tool is simple, the description lacks essential context such as when to run it in a build pipeline, what specific artifacts are removed, and possible side effects. With no annotations or output schema, the description is too sparse to fully guide an AI 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?

The single parameter 'platform' is already described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema.

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 states a clear action ('Clean') and a specific target ('build artifacts'), with a scope ('for the project'). It effectively communicates the tool's basic function, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling build-related tools like 'build_target'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios. It is entirely absent of usage context.

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