clear_captures

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses irreversibility ('Cannot be undone'), the replay-at-attach console behavior, the fact that cleared network requestIds may still resolve in get_network_response_body, and that clearing does not affect the DevTools UI. This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail an agent needs to avoid dangerous assumptions.

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?

Every sentence in the description earns its place: purpose, scope, irreversibility, edge-case behavior, and operational requirements. It is dense but not padded, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the caveats.

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 destructive action with a single optional parameter, the description covers the effect, the scope, the irreversibility, the nuance about cleared network request bodies, and the no-tab requirement. Nothing an agent needs to safely invoke this tool is missing.

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 schema already documents the optional 'targets' array with a default of both console and network, so parameter semantics are clear from the schema. The description adds general context that buffers are server-side but does not further describe the targets parameter, so it adds no significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Discard the buffers this server holds' and ties it to get_console_logs / get_network_requests. It unambiguously distinguishes itself from clearing Chrome or the DevTools UI, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does and what it does not do.

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?

It explains the precise usage context: call this before a following get_console_logs / get_network_requests to start fresh, and notes that capture keeps running so no reconnect/reload is needed. It also states a key boundary — nothing in Chrome or the DevTools UI is cleared — and that it works without a connected tab, giving the agent clear conditions for when this tool is appropriate.

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