clean_run_outputs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action ('Delete') and a scope guard, but it does not mention irreversibility, confirmation flow, dry-run support, or side effects on project state. A delete tool with this little behavioral context is risky for an agent.

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 efficient sentence and the key action is front-loaded. However, it is terse to the point of under-specification, leaving out critical operational information. It is compact but not adequately informative.

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 a destructive tool with eight undocumented parameters and no annotations, this description is far from complete. The agent lacks information about confirm/dry_run semantics, which outputs are eligible for selection, how to specify simsets/run_names, and how this tool relates to clean_runtime_cache. The output schema does not make up for these operational gaps.

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%, with eight parameters (intent, confirm, dry_run, simsets, run_names, timeout_s, include_gen, include_cache) and no parameter descriptions. The description vaguely references 'selected' outputs but does not explain the meaning or role of any parameter. It fails to compensate for the total lack of schema-level documentation.

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 names a specific action ('Delete'), a clear resource ('Vivado generated run/simulation/cache outputs'), and a precise scope ('inside the current project directory only'). This is sufficient to distinguish it from sibling clean_runtime_cache without needing to open the schema.

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 given about when to choose this tool over clean_runtime_cache or other cleanup/collect tools. The only scoping cue is 'inside the current project directory only,' which is a constraint rather than usage direction. The agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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