clear_signals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It clearly states the destructive nature ('Remove', 'clears the whole cache') and clarifies that operations affect only the in-memory repository. It also explains the return dict (cleared_count, signal_id, status), which is valuable behavioral context beyond what the schema provides. Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly state whether removed signals are recoverable, but the in-memory qualifier helps.

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 well-structured and concise. It starts with a clear one-sentence purpose, then follows with an Args section and Returns section. Every sentence adds useful information — even the note about `ctx` being unused is relevant for understanding behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, return values, and the in-memory scope. The output schema fills in the exact return structure, so the description doesn't need to repeat it. For a destructive tool with no annotations, it sufficiently informs the agent about behavior.

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 schema for signal_id is bare (no description, 0% coverage), but the description adds crucial meaning: 'ID to remove; None (default) clears the whole cache.' This explains the parameter's semantics, default behavior, and the distinction between removing a specific signal versus all signals. Without this, the schema alone would be ambiguous.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove one signal — or all signals — from the in-memory repository.' It clearly states the action (removing signals) and the scope (in-memory repository), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_signal_info, list_signals, and generate_test_signal which are non-destructive.

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 usage: use this tool when you need to delete signals or clear the cache. It provides context about the default behavior (None clears the whole cache) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given that no other removal tool exists among siblings, the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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