clean_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions 'enhanced backup support' indicating potential destructive action with a safety net, but does not detail what exactly is removed or whether the backup is recoverable. The behavioral traits are partially transparent but could be more explicit.

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, front-loaded sentence that encapsulates the tool's purpose and key feature (backup support). Every part is informative with no redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 parameters, one required) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for the core functionality. It could be improved by mentioning what types of files or directories are cleaned, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 100% coverage for parameter descriptions, so the schema already explains the parameters. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what is in the schema. Per guidelines, 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: cleaning a project directory to prepare for rebuilding. It specifies the resource (project directory) and the action (clean), and the phrase 'enhanced backup support' adds context. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_apk or decode_apk.

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 usage before rebuilding but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like build_apk. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites. It could clarify that it is intended for cleaning build artifacts before a fresh build.

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