clear_command_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses irreversibility ('cannot be undone'), which is critical for a destructive operation. However, it doesn't mention side effects like whether current running history is affected or permission requirements.

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 short sentences (English and Chinese), front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and the irreversibility warning is essential.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, simple output), the description covers the essential context: what it does and the irreversible nature. It could mention whether it clears history for current user or all users, but this is a minor gap for a straightforward clear operation.

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, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining the scope ('all history records') and irreversibility, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 ('Clear') and specific resource ('all command execution history records'), making the action unmistakable. It also implies destructive scope ('all') and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_command_history (read-only).

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 clearly states the action but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, fallback scenarios, or situations to avoid, though the 'cannot be undone' warning implies cautious use.

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