cleanup_agent_artifacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses operations (scan, clean, archive), dry-run capability, and that interactive mode is treated as dryRun in MCP. However, it does not mention whether clean is permanent or how scanning behaves, leaving minor gaps.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core purpose with examples and then summarize supported operations. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., for scan operation, whether it outputs a list of artifacts). This is a significant omission given the complexity of 7 parameters and operations that produce different results.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The description adds no per-parameter context beyond what the schema provides, achieving the baseline of 3.

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 detects, classifies, and cleans up artifacts from AI coding agents, with specific examples like TODO.md and PLAN.md. It also lists supported operations (scan, clean, archive) and configurable patterns, making it distinct from siblings like memory_cleanup.

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 implies usage for managing agent artifacts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as memory_cleanup or other cleanup tools. No exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations are provided.

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