clear_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'clear' which implies a destructive action, but it doesn't warn about irreversibility, potential impact on multiple devices (since serial is optional and defaults to null), or any permission requirements. The description is too terse to convey the full behavioral scope.

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 sentence plus a clause, with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded and the usage hint follows naturally. It is efficiently structured.

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 an output schema (not described) and a single optional parameter. The description does not explain the output, the parameter, or the scope of the operation (e.g., whether null serial clears all devices or the current device). For a tool with no annotations, this is under-specified. An agent would need to infer too much.

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 one parameter 'serial' with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent without guidance on whether it's required, what it does, or the effect of the default null value. Since the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics, this is a significant gap.

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 action ('Clear all logcat buffers') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_logs and find_crashes by focusing on the clearing operation. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicit context: 'Do this before reproducing a bug so logs stay clean.' This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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