wavexis_console_clear

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

The description explicitly discloses the wholesale buffer reset ('Resets the session's in-memory console message buffer') and the exact return format ('JSON string with keys: status ('ok'/'error')'). This complements the annotations by clarifying what the destructive hint means in practice and what the caller will receive. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 four precise sentences, each with a distinct role: operation, usage placement, side-effect disclosure, and return value. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 a single-parameter utility with helpful annotations and a schema description for the parameter, the description fully covers the intended effect, the recommended timing, the session-scoped nature, and the expected response shape. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and understand its impact.

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 sole parameter, session_id, is already described in the schema as 'Active session ID from wavexis_session_open.' The tool's text does not mention the parameter, but the schema provides sufficient meaning and provenance. Given schema coverage exists, the description need not repeat it.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Clear all buffered console messages for the session.' It clearly defines the operation's scope and distinguishes it from cookie- or tab-related tools in the sibling list. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 a direct usage trigger: 'use it before capturing a fresh set of console logs to avoid stale entries.' This gives the agent a concrete scenario for when to call the tool without requiring inference. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but none are needed for this focused utility.

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