browser_route_clear

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral impact. It clearly states that all active routes are removed, implying destructive behavior. It does not mention irreversibility, side effects on network interception, or return behavior, but for a 0-parameter clear operation the core behavior is transparent enough.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word adds meaning: 'Remove', 'all', 'active', 'block/mock routes' all contribute to the agent's understanding.

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 0-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully specifies the operation and its scope. There are no missing fields, return values to document, or additional configuration details required. An agent can call this tool correctly based solely on the description.

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 no parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. There is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is 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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and a clear resource ('all active block/mock routes'). It differentiates itself from sibling tools like browser_route_block and browser_route_mock, which add routes rather than clear them. An agent can understand exactly what this tool does at a glance.

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 makes the usage context clear: it removes all active block/mock routes. It does not explicitly name the alternatives or state when not to use it, but the contrast with route-setting siblings is strongly implied by 'block/mock routes' and 'Remove all.' This is sufficient for such a simple tool.

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