Logger Clear

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a dangerous write operation and that the result is irreversible, which is critical for a clear tool. It does not state permission requirements, whether the operation is scoped to a host/session, or what exactly is lost beyond the level/module scope.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. The destructive warning is compactly embedded without diluting the core 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are unnecessary. The description correctly states the destructive and irreversible nature, but given no annotations and a six-parameter mutation tool, it omits prerequisites such as required authentication or host/session assumptions, leaving some contextual gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters clearly, including host, port, scheme, and profile. The description mentions 'level/module' but adds no syntax, format, or selection meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: '清除...日志' (clear logs), scoped by level/module. This clearly separates it from sibling logging tools like logger_list and logger_export. However, it does not explicitly name those alternatives to help the agent distinguish contexts.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as logger_list, logger_export, or logger_archive_query. The warning '危险写操作，不可恢复' is a behavior disclosure, not a usage condition or exclusion.

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