voicebox_clear_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it clears completed/failed tasks but omits important details such as whether the clearing is permanent, whether it blocks, whether it affects running tasks, or if any confirmation is required. This lack of transparency is a significant gap for a potentially destructive 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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place without 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?

Given the zero parameters and presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It specifies what is cleared but does not mention underlying behavior (e.g., permanence, confirmation) or what the output contains. For a simple action tool, this is acceptable but leaves some ambiguity.

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 effectively 100% since there are no parameters to describe. The description adds meaning by specifying what is cleared (completed/failed tasks). With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description meets that by providing clear action scope.

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 specifies the action ('clear'), the resource ('background tasks'), and the specific subset ('completed/failed'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'voicebox_get_active_tasks' which retrieves tasks, not clears them, and 'voicebox_list_failed_generations' which lists without clearing.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or side effects. While the name and description imply it's for clearing tasks after they are no longer needed, no explicit comparisons or when-not-to-use scenarios are given.

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