clear_debug_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that the buffer is emptied, which is a destructive action, and the purpose is unambiguous. It does not discuss permissions, side effects, or persistence, but for a debug log clearing tool, the description is transparent enough about the core behavior.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then providing usage context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail. It is concise and immediately understandable.

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 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It not only states what the tool does but also explains the ideal usage context in relation to get_debug_logs, making it self-contained for an agent deciding when to invoke it. The mention of the subsequent log retrieval fills any potential 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 baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings, and it does not introduce any confusion. The clear action description aligns with the empty input schema, so the baseline score is appropriate.

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 states the action ('Empty the debug log buffer') with a specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_debug_logs (retrieves logs) and set_debug_domains (configures domains), and the description adds clarity by framing it as a clearing operation.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use before triggering a test action') and explains the rationale ('so the subsequent get_debug_logs call only contains entries from that action'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the references to get_debug_logs provide clear context for the intended workflow.

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