purge_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly reveals a key side effect: clearing all tasks cancels running ones. It also defines the default behavior (completed/failed only) and the optional behavior (all tasks). It does not mention reversibility or return values, but for a straightforward 'clear' operation this is reasonable. The disclosure of cancellation is a substantive behavioral detail beyond the name.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then the optional behavior. Every word contributes value; no filler or repetition of the tool name. It is concise yet complete for the tool's scope.

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 tool with one optional boolean parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential context: what is cleared, under what conditions, and the cancellation side effect. It lacks explicit statements about irreversibility or return values, but these are not critical for a clear operation. It is adequately complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter ('include_running' with its description). The tool description's mention of 'optionally clear all tasks (cancels running ones)' essentially restates the parameter description ('Also cancel and purge running tasks') without adding new information (e.g., default value, format, or edge cases). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 verb 'Clear' and the resource 'tasks from the task list', and specifies the default scope ('completed/failed') and the optional scope ('all tasks'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'cancel_task' (which cancels a single running task) and 'check_tasks' (which presumably lists tasks). It is specific and unambiguous.

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: use this tool to purge completed/failed tasks, and optionally all tasks (canceling running ones). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use cancel_task for individual running tasks') or state when not to use this tool. The usage context is implied but not explicit, so it falls short of a 4 but is above 'no guidance'.

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