clear_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that it 'Returns: str: Success or error message', which adds some behavioral context about the output. However, it lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., does it trigger UI events?), error conditions (e.g., what happens if no input field is active?), or performance considerations. For a tool with no annotations, this is minimal disclosure.

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 with two short sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the purpose, and the second explains the return value. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or fluff. It's structured effectively for quick comprehension.

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 (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and return type, but as a UI interaction tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more context on behavioral aspects like error handling or dependencies. The output schema likely details the return structure, so the description doesn't need to elaborate further on that.

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 there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids mentioning any. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't introduce confusion.

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 ('Clear text') and target ('in the current input field'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'input_text' or 'set_clipboard_text' by focusing on clearing rather than adding or setting text. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'delete_file' or 'clear_app_data' in terms of scope, though the context makes it reasonably clear.

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. For example, it doesn't specify if this should be used instead of 'input_text' with an empty string, or clarify its role relative to other UI interaction tools like 'click' or 'gesture'. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring an input field to be focused, or exclusions.

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