cypress_clear_artifacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a destructive action ('Clear') and scopes what is affected ('screenshots and videos from previous test runs'). However, it does not warn that the action is irreversible or describe any side effects beyond deletion.

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, focused sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It efficiently communicates the action and target, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it names the action, the artifact types, the timing scope, and the required project parameter. It falls short only in not providing explicit usage context or alternative routing, which is a minor gap for such a straightforward operation.

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 input schema already fully describes the single 'project' parameter with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 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 states a specific verb ('Clear') and a specific resource ('screenshots and videos from previous test runs'), making the tool's function immediately obvious. It distinguishes itself clearly from sibling tools like cypress_screenshots (which likely retrieves artifacts) and the run-based tools.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or typical invocation contexts. The phrase 'previous test runs' implies cleanup before fresh runs, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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