whatsms_admin_clear_cache

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a destructive action ('clear') but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, system impact, or whether the cache is rebuilt automatically. This is insufficient for an admin operation, though it at least signals a mutating action.

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 short sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition, making it concise and easy to parse. However, it is also under-specified, which slightly limits its usefulness, but for conciseness it is well-structured.

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?

Although the tool is simple with no parameters or output schema, the description is too sparse for complete understanding. It does not explain what 'system cache' encompasses, when clearing is appropriate, or whether the operation has disruptive effects. For a mutating admin tool, this lacks essential context.

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%, meaning the schema fully defines the parameter space. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, which applies here.

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 'Clear the system cache' clearly identifies the action (clear) and the resource (system cache), distinguishing it from the sibling admin tools that manage users, roles, packages, and other entities. It uses a specific verb+resource construction, leaving 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative approaches, nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives. It simply states the action without context on when it is appropriate to invoke. This is a lack of guidance, scoring 2 per the rubric.

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