rag_clear

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

Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation is destructive and permanent, describes what is deleted (documents, chunks, embeddings), what is not deleted (source files on disk), and the necessity of re-indexing. It also includes a confirmation requirement. This is exemplary transparency for a destructive tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the critical warning 'Destructive'. Each sentence adds essential information: scope, permanence, what is preserved, and the confirmation requirement. No filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema destructive tool, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, consequences, side effects, and a required user interaction. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely. The absence of an output schema does not matter since no output is described.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain beyond the schema. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description does add relevant context about the scale of the deletion, which is useful. No additional parameter details are needed.

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 specific verb 'delete' and the resource (all indexed documents, chunks, and embeddings from the knowledge base). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like rag_search, rag_status, and rag_index by emphasizing it is a destructive clear-all operation. The scope 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 gives clear context (destructive, permanent) and an explicit instruction to confirm with the user. It also notes that re-indexing is required afterwards, which implies it should only be used when a full reset is intended. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the destructive nature makes the usage context obvious.

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