clear_event_logs

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that logs are cleared but fails to mention irreversibility, scope of effect (e.g., session-global), or any side effects. For a destructive action, this is insufficient detail.

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, concise sentence that directly and completely states the tool's function. There is no redundancy or missing clarity for a tool with no parameters.

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 simple 0-parameter tool, the description covers the basic action but omits critical context such as the destructive nature, relationship to log-collection sibling tools, and any prerequisites or consequences. Without annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context to be fully complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered. As per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description need not add parameter details. It correctly focuses on the action itself.

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 '清空' (clear) and identifies the resource '已收集的控制台日志与异常记录' (collected console logs and exception records), making the function unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like console_messages and exception_messages which collect logs, while this one clears them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention using it after reading logs, nor does it note that it is meant to reset log state. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and sibling relationships.

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