clean

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

Annotations only mark destructiveHint=true, so the description carries the safety burden. It adds critical context: dry-run by default, apply=true required to actually delete, never touches default/active/running sessions, and returns a per-category {count, bytes} report. This is strong behavioral disclosure beyond the annotation.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads purpose and categories, the second covers safety and return format. Every clause earns its place.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: what gets cleaned, default dry-run behavior, safety guarantees, and the return report shape. Parameter details are fully covered by the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces the apply semantics and category scope but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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The description states a specific housekeeping purpose with concrete resource categories: stale profile dirs, superseded Chrome cache dirs, leftover Chrome lock files, regenerable caches, and the daemon log. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling session/profile deletion tools.

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 via 'Housekeeping' and explains the dry-run default, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives like profile_delete or vision_clear_cache. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance beyond never touching active sessions.

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