ui_clear

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the destructive profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: pinned views are preserved, only non-pinned ones are removed. It says nothing about reversibility, whether state can be recovered, or what the call returns.

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 short sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for the operation, though it is terse to the point of leaving meaningful behavior unstated.

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?

Annotations carry the destructive flag and the schema fully documents both params, which lowers the burden. Still, a destructive state-mutating tool with no output schema should at least state the effect scope and whether cleared views can be restored; that gap keeps this at a minimum-viable 3.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with only two optional parameters (project, workdir), both fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('清掉...视图' / clear views) with a scope qualifier ('非置顶的' / non-pinned), so an agent knows exactly what is removed. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as ui_hide or ui_views, which also operate on views, so sibling disambiguation is left to inference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus ui_hide (hide a specific view), ui_views (list views), or ui_override. The 'non-pinned' clause hints at scope but is not framed as a use condition or exclusion.

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