logs_clear

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden for what is clearly a destructive operation, yet it never states that log data is permanently removed, whether the effect is reversible, what permissions are required, or how much data is affected. 'Bounded' and 'explicitly selected' are the only hints about scope and are left undefined.

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 with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity comes partly at the cost of the missing behavioral and parameter detail noted elsewhere.

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 tool with zero annotation coverage, a required undocumented parameter, and no usage guidance, the description is inadequate — it omits irreversibility, permissions, and selector semantics. The presence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values but not from these gaps.

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 coverage is only 33% — 'runtime' is documented but 'selectors' (required, array of strings, minItems 1) and 'with_actions' are not described in either the schema or the description. The description's phrase 'explicitly selected bounded service/action log buffers' vaguely gestures at selectors but provides no format, syntax, or meaning for that critical required parameter.

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 gives a specific verb ('Clear') and resource ('service/action log buffers'), so the action is unambiguous. It does not name or contrast with the sibling 'logs' tool, which is the obvious read counterpart, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus 'logs' or any other sibling, and no prerequisites or conditions for invocation. The word 'explicitly selected' hints at scoping but gives no actionable guidance about when clearing is warranted.

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