redmine_invalidate_cache

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals that no HTTP request is made, auth fingerprint is preserved, and details the effects of each scope option. While safety or reversibility is not discussed, the provided behavioral traits are sufficient.

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 exceptionally concise—four sentences structured with a clear purpose, parameter details, and usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or filler.

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 (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers behavior, parameter options, and usage context. It needs no additional information for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining each allowed value ('all', 'tracker:<id-or-name>', 'project:<id-or-slug>') and their specific effects, adding crucial meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Drop cached entries for a scope,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling CRUD tools by focusing on cache invalidation, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use after Redmine config changes (new trackers, edited workflow, moved roles),' providing clear context. Although no direct alternatives are listed, the tool is unique among siblings, and the description effectively guides when to invoke it.

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