rtt_clear

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

The description indicates a destructive action ('Clear') but provides no details on side effects, such as data loss or state changes. With no annotations, the description should elaborate on what exactly happens when the buffer is cleared.

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 extremely concise at three words, with no superfluous content. It is front-loaded and efficient for a trivial action.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it leaves ambiguity about which buffer is cleared and what state results, which could be clarified.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds meaning by naming the action and resource, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Clear') and the resource ('RTT buffer'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rtt_read or rtt_send, which perform different operations. However, it could specify which buffer (e.g., input/output) for added clarity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rtt_read or rtt_send. The description does not indicate prerequisites or typical scenarios for clearing the buffer.

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