Clear Moonvy genome cache

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 discloses the action and the trigger, but doesn't elaborate on side effects (e.g., whether it clears only the specific design's cache or all, whether it invalidates cached data for other tools, or if it's immediate). It's not misleading, but it's thinner than ideal for a mutation-like operation.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and object, with no unnecessary words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage context.

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 simple no-parameter, no-output tool, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what it does and when to call it. There's no missing information that would cause incorrect 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). Per the rubric baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-related information, which is appropriate since there are none to document.

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 states the specific action ('clear') and resource ('in-memory genome cache'), which is distinct from all sibling tools that fetch or parse design data. It's clear, though the term 'genome' is domain-specific and not further explained. It differentiates implicitly by function.

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 gives a clear trigger condition: 'after a design has changed and must be fetched again.' This tells when to use it, but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Since siblings are all about fetching/parsing, the intent is clear without further exclusions.

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