eda_sys_log_clear

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals the return type is void and that logs are cleared, but it does not state whether clearing is irreversible, whether it applies to the active window or all logs, or what side effects may occur.

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 compact and front-loaded: an API signature followed by a one-line Chinese explanation. It has no filler, though it is somewhat too sparse to be genuinely helpful.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the concrete effect, scope, and consequences more fully. It gives a return type and a basic action, but leaves important context such as whether the clear affects only the active window or all logs to inference.

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%, so the args array and windowId parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but since the schema covers both parameters, the baseline 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 the action clearly: 'sys_Log.clear() -> void / 清空日志' means clear logs. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling log tools like eda_sys_log_add, eda_sys_log_find, or eda_sys_log_export.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool, what clearing the logs accomplishes, or when to avoid it. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and the concise description.

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