unity_console_clear

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Clear' implies destruction of console log content, which is transparent. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., irreversible loss of log data) or mention that it operates on a specific Unity instance via the port parameter. The effect is adequately communicated for this simple action.

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?

A single sentence, no wasted words. Perfectly concise for a simple, well-understood operation. Every word serves a purpose.

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 description is minimal but adequate for a straightforward clear action. It lacks details about prerequisites (e.g., need for a connected Unity instance), but the port parameter in the schema fills that gap. For a tool with no output schema and low complexity, it is moderately complete.

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 already covers the port parameter with a full description. The tool description adds no further explanation about parameters or their usage. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Clear the Unity console log' uses a specific verb ('Clear') and identifies the exact resource ('Unity console log'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes from siblings like unity_console_log (which adds a log entry) and unity_get_compilation_errors (which reads errors).

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. There is no mention of typical use cases (e.g., clearing before tests), when not to use it, or relationship to the port parameter. Users must infer from context.

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