bridge_clear_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the action (resets cursor) and a key non-behavior (does not delete/truncate the log), which is valuable. However, it does not elaborate on any side effects or what the cursor reset entails beyond the literal meaning, leaving some room for interpretation.

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 consists of two short sentences that are perfectly front-loaded. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or off-topic information.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what it does and what it does not do. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly, though it could briefly mention the relationship to 'clear_output_log' to fully resolve any ambiguity.

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 takes zero parameters, and the input schema confirms this. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Reset') and a clear resource ('MCP output-log cursor marker'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from a sibling tool by stating it does not delete or truncate the UE log. This makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool by clarifying it does not clear the log, which contrasts with the sibling 'clear_output_log'. However, it does not explicitly state an alternative or provide a direct 'use this when' guideline, so it falls just short of a 5.

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