clear_store

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool empties the session storage completely and returns the number of deleted entries, conveying both the destructive nature and the observable result. This is sufficient for a no-argument reset operation.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and the return-value note, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 parameterless tool, the description covers everything needed: what it clears, when to use it, and what it returns. Since there is no output schema, explicitly stating that it returns the deletion count is valuable and makes the tool self-contained.

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 already reflects that with an empty properties object. With no parameters to document, the description appropriately focuses on behavior and return value instead; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Leert den Session-Speicher der Bridge komplett.' It clearly states the action, the scope (the bridge session storage), and the outcome (returns how many entries were deleted). This sufficiently distinguishes it from siblings like clear_check_notes, which targets a different resource.

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 gives concrete usage context: useful at the start of a new task or after bridge timeouts. It does not mention alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but the provided context is clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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