fs_rmrf

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

The description states the tool removes recursively, but does not disclose that it is irreversible or destructive. In the absence of annotations, the agent lacks awareness of behavioral traits such as requiring confirmation or handling errors. No details on permissions or safety.

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, concise with no unnecessary words. However, it could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.

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 does not explain output or error behavior. For a destructive tool, it lacks warnings about permanence. The sessionId parameter is crucial but not elaborated. The tool is simple, but the description omits key completeness aspects.

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 input schema provides descriptions for both parameters ('SSH session ID', 'Path to remove'), covering 100%. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what is already in 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 clearly states the tool removes files or directories recursively. The verb 'removes' and resource 'files or directories' are specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like fs_list, fs_read, etc.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is destructive or irreversible, nor does it suggest when to use other file manipulation tools.

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