local_gpu_cleanup_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions removal but does not warn that this is destructive and irreversible, nor does it explain the role of the 'confirmation' parameter. The phrase 'fully confirmed' is vague and lacks details about confirmation requirements or consequences for unconfirmed runs.

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, front-loaded with the key verb and resource. It is not bloated, though it could add a bit more context without sacrificing 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?

Given that an output schema exists, return values need not be described. However, the tool is destructive with three required parameters and no annotations. The description omits critical context about when cleanup is appropriate, how confirmation works, and what data is affected, making it incomplete for safe invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains the 'scope' parameter by mentioning 'intermediates' vs 'fully confirmed run directory', but gives no insight into 'run_id' or 'confirmation'. The required confirmation parameter is not addressed at all.

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 with a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('run intermediates or a fully confirmed run directory'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on cleanup/removal, which is unique among the listed operations like generate, start, or inspect.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios for cleaning intermediates vs full directories, or contrast with any sibling. The reader must infer usage from the name and basic purpose.

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