output_enforcer_clear

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

The description discloses that clearing affects both memory and disk and returns the count cleared. Since no annotations are provided, this carries the transparency burden well. It does not mention irreversibility or effects on related state, but for a simple clear operation this is largely sufficient.

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, front-loaded with the action, and includes essential scope and return information. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary detail.

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 parameterless clear operation, the description comprehensively states the exact scope (all violations, memory+disk) and the return value (count cleared). With an output schema also present, an agent has all needed information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 an empty input schema, so the description naturally adds no parameter-specific information. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters to explain.

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 explicitly states 'Clear all violation records' with the scope 'memory + disk' and the return value 'count cleared.' This clearly identifies the action, resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like status, violations, and breakers.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description doesn't indicate when to clear violations, mention alternatives, or note prerequisites. An agent might need to know whether to check status first or whether clearing is required before another operation.

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