clear_index

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the destructive scope ('entire index') and what will be returned ('Dict with confirmation status'), which is meaningful context. It does not mention reversibility or permissions, but for a clear operation, this level of transparency is adequate.

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 minimal and front-loaded: two short sentences and a return line. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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, output-schema-bearing tool, the description is complete: it explains what it does, when to use it, and the return shape. No important information is missing for selecting and invoking this tool.

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 coverage is 100% (empty object). The description appropriately avoids parameter discussion, and the baseline for no-parameter tools is 4.

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 ('Clear the entire index') with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like index_codebase (which builds) and search_code (which queries). It also adds purpose context ('start fresh or recover from errors'), making the tool's intent 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 explicitly tells when to use the tool ('start fresh or recover from errors'), providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name any alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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