rag_clear

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only labels the operation as 'Destructive' without detailing what gets destroyed (documents, cache, or both), irreversibility, or permission requirements. This is insufficient for a potentially data-loss 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 very short (two sentences), which is concise but sacrifices necessary details for a destructive tool. It is front-loaded with purpose but lacks structured warnings or examples.

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 no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or when to use each parameter. A destructive tool warrants more comprehensive 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters beyond their names. 'documents' and 'cache' are somewhat intuitive, but no additional semantics or usage examples are provided, failing to compensate for the schema gaps.

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 clears LightRAG documents and/or cache, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on clearing, but lacks specificity about what 'clear' entails (e.g., deletion, truncation).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like rag_ask or rag_status. The word 'Destructive' hints at caution but doesn't specify prerequisites or contexts where clearing is appropriate.

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