request_clear

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the journal is cleared entirely and that mappings are preserved, which is useful. However, it does not mention reversibility, persistence, or side effects on in-flight requests, leaving some behavioral ambiguity for a destructive 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys all essential information: the action, the target, the scope, and the critical non-destructive exception. No filler or redundancy, every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does and what it avoids. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's scope and impact, and the sibling context around journal clearing is accounted for.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the description adds nothing about parameters, which is appropriate and complete for a no-argument 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 uses a specific verb 'Clear' with a resource 'WireMock request journal' and scope 'entire', immediately clarifying the operation. The qualifier 'without deleting mappings' distinguishes it from related tools like mock_reset and mock_delete, making its purpose 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 implies the intended use case: when you want to wipe the request journal but keep mappings intact. It contrasts with mock_reset behavior implicitly, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude other tools. This gives clear context without formal when-to-use statements.

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