clear_attention

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the action (clearing a flag) and the trigger condition, but does not disclose idempotency, error behavior, or any side effects. This is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and the condition. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema provided), the description covers the essential what and when. It could mention idempotency or error cases, but the core context is complete for the intended use case.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly maps 'task_id' to the task whose flag is cleared, providing basic semantic meaning. However, it does not explain how to obtain the task_id or any constraints, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('clear') and resource ('a task's 'needs attention' flag'), and the context 'once the user has responded' adds scoping. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tool 'flag_attention' which likely sets the same flag.

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 states when to use the tool ('once the user has responded'), providing a clear usage context. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the when-to-use condition is sufficient for this simple operation.

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