clear

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool only affects the semantic cache (not project files) and returns the number of entries removed. It could mention lack of reversibility or permission requirements, but the essential behavior is clear.

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 concise with four sentences, each serving a specific purpose: stating action, clarifying non-destructiveness, providing usage guidance, and indicating return value. No verbose or redundant content.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, behavioral constraints, usage recommendations, and return value. The information is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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, so the input schema needs no additional explanation. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meriting a baseline score of 4.

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 tool's action ('Clear the semantic cache') and explicitly distinguishes it from other operations by noting it does not modify project files. This specific verb+resource definition sets it apart from siblings like 'write' and 'delete'.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'use this rarely', explains specific scenarios ('recover from stale cache state or to force cold re-seeding'), and suggests preferring 'read'/'batch_read' refresh behavior. This clearly tells when and when not to use the tool.

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