清理远程后台任务

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds specific detail about what gets destroyed (scripts, logs, status files) and the condition (completed tasks). It does not discuss irreversibility or permissions, but the destructive annotation already signals the risk, so the added context is valuable.

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 sentence that directly states the action and target with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately concise.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema present) and the destructive annotation covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It defines the scope (completed tasks) and the objects, which is enough for an agent to understand the basic operation. Minor gaps include behavior for active jobs or missing files, but the output schema likely handles error reporting.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention alias or job_id at all. The agent must rely purely on parameter names, which is insufficient for a remote SSH tool with required arguments.

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 action (delete) and the resources (scripts, logs, and status files) for completed tasks. This specific verb+resource distinction differentiates it well from sibling tools like ssh_job_status and ssh_cancel_job.

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 phrase '已完成任务' (completed tasks) implies it is used after jobs finish, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or recommended conditions. The usage is only implied by context.

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