network_stores_clear

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

The description clearly indicates that the tool performs a destructive action (dropping all captured responses), which is the key behavioral trait. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it meets it sufficiently by explaining the scope and effect.

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 extremely concise: two sentences front-loading the action and usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose with no filler.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what the tool does and when to use it. It could mention that it only affects the current session's store, but that is already implied.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed. According to guidelines, baseline is 4 for zero parameters, and the description does not 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 ('Drop all captured network responses') and the resource ('session's network store'), making the purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'network_stores' which likely retrieves data, while this one clears it.

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 explicitly advises when to use the tool: 'between unrelated navigations' and why: to prevent earlier captures from appearing in later calls. While it doesn't name specific alternatives, the context is clear and helps the agent decide.

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