cache_prune

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

The annotation already declares destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive operation. The description adds the target scope ('dangling cache entries and environments'), which is useful context, but it does not explain irreversibility, specific data affected, or any side effects beyond what the annotation implies. It provides some added context but not rich behavioral detail.

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 with no filler words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the verb 'prune' and clearly identifies the target. Every word contributes to the purpose, achieving maximum conciseness.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with one optional parameter and an output schema present, so it does not need to explain return values. However, the description lacks usage guidance and minimal detail about what 'dangling' means in practice. While the annotation covers destructiveness, the description is still thin on context for an agent to decide when to invoke this over similar cache-management tools.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'ci', including its default and description. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 uses a specific verb 'prune' and identifies the resources: dangling cache entries and environments. This is clearly distinct from a generic 'clean' or 'delete' and hints at removing stale or orphaned data. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cache_clean or update_cache, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cache_clean or update_cache. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context hints. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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