clear_received_requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool clears history but does not stop the bridge or response rules, which is valuable context beyond the literal action. It does not mention irreversibility or other effects, but for a simple clear operation this is 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, tightly worded sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action ('Clear the recorded request history') and immediately follows with the critical scope qualifier ('without stopping the bridge or its response rules').

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 tool with no output schema and a clear sibling set, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: the effect, the scope, and what it does not affect. Nothing essential is missing.

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, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly avoids any irrelevant parameter details.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Clear the recorded request history.' It distinguishes from siblings like clear_rules by specifying it clears request history, not rules. The addition of 'without stopping the bridge' also differentiates it from stop_mock_bridge.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: when you want to clear history while keeping the bridge and response rules active. It implicitly tells the agent not to use it if the goal is to stop the bridge or clear rules, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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