opencode_tui_clear_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether the cleared text is discarded or recoverable, whether a TUI session must be active, or what happens if no prompt exists. Scope ('current') is the only behavioral signal.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, with zero filler or redundancy. However, it is terse to the point of adding no context, so it is efficient rather than exemplary.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema), so the definition is minimally adequate, but it omits any precondition (TUI connectivity) or side-effect info that a caller would want even for a trivial 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'directory' parameter is fully documented in the schema as optional with a server-default fallback. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Clear') and resource ('the current TUI prompt'), which an agent can distinguish from opencode_tui_append_prompt and opencode_tui_submit_prompt by the verb alone. It does not name or contrast with those siblings, so it sits just short of a 5.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of alternative TUI prompt tools. Usage is only faintly implied by 'current prompt'; nothing tells the agent when clearing is appropriate versus appending or submitting.

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