android_uiautomator_clear_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (clear text) but lacks details on what 'clear' entails (e.g., does it simulate backspace, delete all text at once, require focus?), potential side effects (e.g., might trigger UI events), error conditions (e.g., if element not found or not clearable), or performance aspects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the operation and how to identify the element.

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?

Given the complexity (a mutation tool for Android UI automation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral traits, error handling, or return values (e.g., success/failure status), which are crucial for safe and effective use. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for tool invocation is insufficient.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (resourceId and deviceSerial). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it only reiterates the resource ID aspect without providing additional context (e.g., format examples, common patterns, or when deviceSerial is needed). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 text') and target ('from a UI element by resource ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like android_uiautomator_set_text (which sets text) and android_input_text (which inputs text generally). However, it doesn't specify what type of UI element (e.g., text field, edit box) or clarify that it's specifically for Android UI automation, though context from sibling names helps.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for clearing text from UI elements identified by resource ID, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the element must be interactable), exclusions (e.g., not for non-text elements), or compare it to similar tools like android_uiautomator_set_text (which could clear by setting empty text). Usage is implied but not clearly defined.

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