clear_queue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that the currently running job is not affected, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it could mention if the action is irreversible or any other side effects, but for a simple tool this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the main action, and the second sentence provides a critical exception. Perfectly concise.

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 zero-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It could be slightly more complete by stating if the action is destructive or requires confirmation, but it is not missing critical information.

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 no parameters, so the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no additional parameter information, which is appropriate.

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 all pending jobs' and the resource 'ComfyUI queue'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cancel_job and cancel_queued_job by focusing on clearing all pending jobs rather than specific ones.

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 clearing all pending jobs but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With sibling tools like cancel_queued_job, it would benefit from mentioning alternatives or prerequisites, but it is not completely lacking.

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