clear_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the stream continues running and that the signal buffer is untouched ('The signal buffer is untouched'), which is valuable behavioral context. It implicitly signals this is a destructive operation (clearing the log). For a simple tool with no annotation safety profile, this is commendable transparency.

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?

Two brief sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core action and its limitation (doesn't stop stream), the second adds usage context and a safety note (signal buffer untouched). Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple tool with one parameter, an output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is sufficient. It explains the purpose, when to use it, and the side-effect boundary (stream continues, buffer untouched). This covers the essential context an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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% and the single parameter 'session_id' is described as 'The session whose log to clear,' which fully explains its semantics. The description itself doesn't add beyond the schema, but with only one well-documented parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Empty the session's event log without stopping the stream' — a specific verb ('empty'), resource ('event log'), and scope ('without stopping the stream'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_events' (read), 'log_event' (add), and 'clear_filters' (different resource).

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 provides clear context by stating 'Useful between blocks of an experiment,' indicating when (between experimental blocks) to use this tool. It also clarifies that clearing the log does not stop the stream, which helps an agent know when this is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives (like what to use if you want to retain events) or exclusion conditions.

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