clear_errors

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral disclosure beyond the bare action. 'Clear' implies destructive behavior, but it doesn't state whether the operation is reversible, whether it requires the server to be running, whether it affects only errors or other state, or whether it has side effects on connected sessions. For a destructive operation with zero annotations, this is insufficient.

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 clean sentence with zero waste. It states the action and the outcome efficiently.

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?

The tool is simple (0 params, no output schema), so the description covers the core operation. However, for a destructive action with no annotations, it would benefit from noting confirmations, scope of what gets cleared, and relationship to the server lifecycle. It's minimally adequate but leaves behavioral 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 has 0 parameters, so the description bears little parameter burden. With no parameters to document, there's nothing meaningful to add; the baseline 4 for 0-param tools is appropriate since semantic gaps are impossible.

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 'Clear the error log and start fresh' clearly identifies the verb (clear), resource (error log), and the effect (reset to a clean state). It's unambiguous about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from get_errors or get_logs in terms of read-vs-write semantics.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't clarify whether errors are distinct from general logs, when one might want to clear the error log, or any prerequisites (e.g., server running). The sibling tools like get_errors and get_logs suggest a logging context, but no exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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