memory_clear

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation clears the timeline and window index, which identifies the destructive scope. However, it does not state whether the clearing is irreversible, what permissions are required, or how it affects related memory tools.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a destructive operation.

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 description identifies the memory layer and the two targets being cleared, which is the minimum needed to understand the operation. Because there are no annotations and no output schema, it should do more to warn about irreversibility, impact on related memory data, or preconditions.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to document in the description. The empty schema is consistent with the description, and no additional parameter explanation 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 states a specific verb ('清空') and resource ('时间线与窗口索引') within the memory layer, so the tool's action is clear. It does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools such as memory_timeline or memory_stats, but the destructive clear action is distinguishable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_recall, memory_timeline, or memory_stats. It also does not state prerequisites, warnings, or conditions under which clearing should be avoided.

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