output_clear

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that the internal log buffer is cleared and does not disclose whether the action is irreversible, whether error logs are also cleared, or what effect this has on subsequent output_get calls.

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 with no wasted words and the action is stated upfront. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and is easy to parse.

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 simple, parameterless tool, the description covers the basic operation well, and the absence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, the lack of behavioral details such as side effects or whether only output logs versus error logs are cleared leaves a meaningful gap.

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 and the schema confirms this, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description's reference to the internal log buffer is sufficient context for a parameterless operation.

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 names a specific verb ('Clear') and a specific resource ('the internal log buffer'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like output_get and output_get_errors by the action of clearing, though it does not explicitly say what scope of log is affected.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as output_get or output_get_errors. Usage is only implied by the name and brief description; there is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or when clearing is appropriate.

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