clean_empty_data_files

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Limpa' (cleans) is vague and does not explicitly state that files are deleted. The schema parameter 'dry_run' reveals deletion when false, but the tool description itself fails to mention the destructive nature or any safety details, leaving the agent to infer behavior.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and key details (file types, directory, criterion). Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description provides adequate context: file types, target directory, and the criterion for 'empty'. The only weakness is the lack of explicit mention of deletion, but the schema partially compensates and the tool is not complex.

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 coverage is 100%: the single parameter dry_run has a clear description explaining list vs. delete behavior. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function: identifies and cleans JSON/CSV files without valid data points in the ./data directory. The verb 'identifica e limpa' is specific, the resource (JSON/CSV files) is explicit, and it is clearly distinguished from sibling tools which are all about reading/scanning fitness data.

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 the usage context (cleaning data files) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. However, the tool's purpose is sufficiently distinct from siblings, so the lack of explicit guidance is a moderate gap.

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