Produces a deterministic dry-run removal plan for codebase entropy, identifying changes without applying them; execution stays a manual CLI or GUI action.
The deterministic erase PLAN (ce.erase-plan schema) — dry-run by construction: this surface reaches the plan and nothing else, and applying it is a human act at the CLI or the GUI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | subpath (default: project root) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the critical traits: deterministic, dry-run by construction, reaches the plan and nothing else, no mutation side effects. It stops short of noting auth requirements or rate/perf characteristics.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the key noun phrase 'deterministic erase PLAN'. Every clause (dry-run, reaches nothing else, human applies) earns its place, though the em-dash density is slightly heavy.
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?
No annotations or output schema exist, so the description must orient the agent, and it succeeds in conveying that the return is a plan that must be applied manually. It could say more about what the plan contains, leaving a small gap.
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% and the single optional 'path' param is documented in the schema, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the path parameter's meaning or default beyond what the schema already states.
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?
Names a specific artifact ('the deterministic erase PLAN', 'ce.erase-plan schema') and explicitly scopes it as plan-only versus applying. An agent can tell it does not perform the destructive erasure itself. However, it never names a sibling (e.g. erase_log) to differentiate against, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
Gives clear context: reach for this to obtain the plan, while applying is a manual step at CLI/GUI. This tells the agent when its output is the deliverable, though it names no alternative tool and offers no explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.