output_enforcer_clear

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses destructive behavior (clear) and mentions it affects both memory and disk, but lacks details on required permissions, reversibility, or side effects. The return count is positive.

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 (12 words, two sentences) and front-loaded with the action and scope. Every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, what it affects, and what it returns. No additional context is necessary.

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 description cannot add meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100% by default (empty schema). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description suffices.

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'), the resource ('all violation records'), the scope ('memory + disk'), and the return value ('Returns count cleared'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'output_enforcer_breakers' and 'output_enforcer_status' by specifying a clear operation.

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 for resetting violation records but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not scenarios. No guidance on prerequisites or context.

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