files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only restates the high-level actions (clean, archive, optimize) without explaining effects such as whether clean deletes files permanently, whether archive moves them, what optimize does, or whether operations are reversible.

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 short sentence that front-loads the resource and names the supported operations. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 has multiple actions with very different behaviors, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not explain return values, destructive potential, prerequisites, or what each action actually does. This is insufficient for an agent to reliably select and invoke the correct action.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and their roles. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the resource (files in the data directory) and lists supported operations (cleanup, archive, optimization). It is clear enough to distinguish this tool from the sibling context/logging/settings tools, though the verb '管理' (manage) is somewhat broad.

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?

Usage context is only implied: the tool is for managing files in the data directory, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives, and no details on which action fits which scenario.

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