neurover_cleanup_scan

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

Adds real context beyond annotations: it discloses asynchronous job semantics (a status of scanning means the scan is still running and the call should be repeated with the same jobId) and reassures that nothing is deleted, which aligns with destructiveHint=false despite readOnlyHint=false. It stops short of explaining what a completed scan produces or where that output is consumed.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose and the non-destructive guarantee front-loaded, then the retry rule. No filler, though the terseness leaves the surrounding workflow implicit.

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 an async scan tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, safety, and the poll-again rule, which is what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The main gap is how an initial jobId is obtained and which sibling consumes the scan result.

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 0% for four parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only clarifies jobId (resume with the same value); kind, account, and workflowId receive no explanation, leaving an agent to guess at their meaning and interaction.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: find similar files by metadata, as step 1 of duplicate cleanup, and explicitly notes it deletes nothing. The 'step 1' framing distinguishes it from the report/verify/approve siblings, though the exact boundary with cleanup_start, cleanup_step, and cleanup_new is left implicit.

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 one concrete usage rule — if status=scanning, retry with the same jobId — which is genuinely useful polling guidance. However, a crowded cleanup family (scan/start/step/status/new/report/verify/approve) is present and the description never says when to pick this tool over those alternatives.

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