clear_buffer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of alerting the agent that this is a data-destructive operation: it discards received data and drops old echo, prior output, or syslog noise. It also clarifies the expected consequence for subsequent reads. Minor gaps remain around irreversibility and whether the operation applies globally or per connection.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the action front-loaded first; every clause adds useful context and there is no 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 simple utility, the core behavior and recommended placement in a workflow are clear. However, the optional connection parameter is undocumented, and the description doesn't explain how buffer/connection addressing works, so an agent with multiple connections could invoke it incorrectly. The existence of an output schema covers return values in principle.

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 sole parameter, 'connection,' has no schema description (0% coverage), and the tool description never mentions it or explains how it selects the buffer to clear. The word 'any' even creates ambiguity about whether the buffer is global or connection-specific.

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 and resource: 'Discard any buffered received data.' It also distinguishes itself from read/send siblings by explaining the side effect of clearing stale data, so the agent knows exactly what this tool does.

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?

It gives explicit timing: 'handy right before sending a command,' and explains why—so the next read starts clean and drops old echo/output/noise. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops 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.