Wipe serial terminal buffers to clear cluttered logs. Define the port and target (main, history, or all) to reset the window display and streamline device communication.
Clear the text buffers of a window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | Yes | ||
| target | No | main, filter, history, or all | all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. 'Clear' implies data loss, but it never states that the operation is irreversible, whether it requires an active connection (connect_serial), or what happens to buffer contents not yet read.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but its brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency — it omits the destructive semantics and required connection context an agent needs.
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 an unannotated destructive tool with no output schema and an undocumented required parameter, the definition is incomplete. The agent cannot tell which port identifier to supply or what state remains after clearing.
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?
Schema coverage is only 50%: the required 'port' parameter has no description anywhere, and the description does not compensate by explaining which window/connection it identifies. The 'target' options (main, filter, history, all) come entirely from the schema, so the description adds nothing over structured data.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Clear the text buffers') with a scope qualifier ('of a window'), so the agent knows this is a destructive buffer-reset operation. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_buffer_status or read_received_data, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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?
No guidance on when to call this versus reading buffers first, nor any warning that clearing discards data that read_received_data / read_filtered_data would otherwise return. The agent gets no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.