clearPendingMessages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool performs a deletion/clearance action ('Clear all queued messages'), which implies mutation, but does not specify if this is reversible, requires permissions, or has side effects. It adds some context about batch processing but lacks details on error handling or confirmation.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Clear all queued in-world user messages') and adds a brief usage note. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient.

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 tool's complexity (simple mutation with 0 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like irreversibility or error conditions, which are relevant for a mutation tool.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. A baseline of 4 is applied as it efficiently handles the zero-parameter case.

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 specific action ('Clear') and resource ('all queued in-world user messages'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'getPendingUserMessages' (which retrieves messages) and 'clearScene' (which clears scene objects). It uses precise terminology that directly conveys the tool's function.

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 provides clear context for usage ('useful after processing a batch'), which implies it should be used post-processing rather than during or before. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, keeping it from a perfect score.

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