clear_filters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the behavioral effect (reads return raw signal), which for a destructive/state-changing action is meaningful. It doesn't state whether filters are permanently lost or recoverable, which would be useful, but the core behavior is conveyed.

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 short sentences, zero wasted words. Every element adds value: the action, the target, and the observable consequence. Ideal length for a single-parameter tool with no additional configuration.

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 is simple (one required param, no enums, no nesting) and an output schema exists. The description covers the action and its effect on read behavior. Sibling set_filters provides the natural counterpart. Could mention that this is a state-mutating operation, but the description is adequate for a simple filter-clearing tool.

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 coverage is 100% for the single session_id parameter, which is well described as 'The session to clear filters on.' The description adds contextual meaning by clarifying the observable effect on reads for that session. No parameter gaps to compensate for.

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 'Remove the filter chain; reads return raw signal again' clearly states the verb (remove) and resource (filter chain), and adds the consequence (reads return raw signal). It distinguishes from its sibling set_filters. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling for contrast.

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 when to use it (when filters are active and you want to return to raw signal) but does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternative tools. The inverse relationship with set_filters is implicit but not articulated.

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