clear

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Clear' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this action is reversible, what exactly gets cleared (e.g., all content, only visible items), or any side effects (e.g., stopping playback). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise ('Clear the editor')—just three words—with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and gets straight to the point, which is ideal for a simple tool. Every sentence (here, a single phrase) earns its place.

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 complexity (a mutation with no parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'clear' entails, the result (e.g., empty editor, confirmation message), or error conditions. For a destructive operation, more context is needed to guide safe usage.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is fine here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary complexity.

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 'Clear the editor' states a specific action ('Clear') and target ('the editor'), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't specify what 'editor' refers to or what gets cleared (e.g., content, selections, history), making it somewhat vague. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'undo' or 'init' that might also reset state.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., if an editor must be open), exclusions (e.g., cannot clear while playing), or related tools like 'undo' for reversal or 'init' for reinitialization. This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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