clear_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool destroys logs and that logs are stored in-memory, but it does not explicitly warn that the action is irreversible or describe any side effects. Basic behavioral disclosure is present, but richer context is missing for a destructive operation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that uses specific action language. No filler, no repetition of schema information, and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with no params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the core effect. It names the resource and location, indicating it clears all log types. It could mention that the action is irreversible, but the tool's triviality makes the description sufficient.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% vacuously, so the description need not explain parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-related confusion.

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 verb ('Clear'), the resource ('all logs'), and the scope ('in-memory buffer'). This distinctively differentiates it from sibling read-only tools like get_build_logs and get_runtime_logs, which are all getters.

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 implies clear usage context: use this tool when you need to discard logs from memory. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the contrast with get_* siblings and the verb 'clear' provide unambiguous guidance for this simple tool.

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