clear_output

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the mechanism (printing blank lines) and the non-destructive nature ('nothing is deleted'). This is strong transparency for a simple zero-parameter tool, though minor details like scroll impact are not mentioned.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and includes the essential qualifier. Every word contributes; no redundancy or 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is fully complete: it explains what it does, how it does it, and the key safety aspect. There are no missing behavioral details that would impact an agent's invocation.

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 and the schema covers 100% of them (vacuously). Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to add parameter information.

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 a specific verb ('Push old content out of view') and a specific resource ('editor Output panel') with a method ('printing blank lines'). It is distinct from siblings like get_output_log or clear_editor_selection.

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 implies usage context (clearing the output panel without deleting content) and the 'cosmetic only' qualifier clarifies the effect. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusionary conditions, but the purpose is clear enough to infer when to use it.

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