sc_cleanup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. 'Remove technical debt' implies modifying code, but the description does not state whether files are edited, whether changes are reversible, or what side effects the cleanup may have.

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 very short and front-loaded, consisting of just a label and a brief outcome phrase. It is not verbose, though it is slightly under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and four parameters including a nested evidence object, the one-line description is insufficient for an agent to understand invocation context, return values, or side effects. It lacks essential operational details beyond the schema.

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 describes all four parameters (args, flags, persona, evidence) with coverage at 100%. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 identifies the tool as performing code cleanup and removing technical debt, which names both the action and the target resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like sc_improve or sc_analyze, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where sc_cleanup is preferred over related tools such as sc_improve or sc_analyze.

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