Clear all traffic

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine context beyond the structured fields: that the wipe is irreversible and that clients typically intercept it with a confirmation prompt, which sets agent expectations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action, then the irreversibility warning, then the confirmation note. No filler and nothing buried.

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 zero-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: scope, irreversibility, and confirmation. It does not mention preconditions such as whether capture must be stopped first, which would be a small remaining gap.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly conveys there is no filtering or scoping argument — the operation is always a full buffer wipe.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with explicit scope: 'Delete every captured traffic entry from the engine buffer.' An agent can distinguish this bulk-clear from siblings like delete_session or list_traffic without opening any schema.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated — there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative for narrowing or selectively deleting traffic. The mention of client confirmation is about execution behavior, not tool selection.

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