imgui_clear_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description indicates a destructive, irreversible reset behavior, but doesn't disclose whether this can be undone via imgui_undo, whether it affects things like loaded textures, snapshots, styles, or scenes, or what the exact scope of 'all' covers. For a destructive bulk operation, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single sentence that states the action and the resulting state with zero wasted words. Appropriate for a tool with no parameters.

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 0-parameter bulk reset operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It conveys the core action but doesn't disclose the full scope/non-scope (e.g., what persists afterward, whether it's undoable, whether resources like textures are cleaned up). Given the potential destructiveness, more information would improve completeness.

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 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there's nothing for the description to add. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately has no parameter information to provide.

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 'Remove' with a clear resource scope 'all windows and widgets', and states the resulting state ('resetting to empty state'). It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like imgui_remove_window or imgui_remove_widget which are more targeted removal operations. The 'all' scope differentiates it implicitly.

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 this is a destructive bulk operation that clears everything, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs imgui_remove_window/imgui_remove_widget/delete_scene. The 'reset to empty state' phrasing gives some context, but no explicit exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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