Infra Cache

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds little beyond restating the action enum and does not flag which action (clear) is the destructive one, but since annotations cover this the minimum viable 3 applies.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource is stated before the operations. It is efficiently sized, though it leans on the enum rather than explaining intent.

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?

With a full output schema and complete annotations carrying the safety and return semantics, and 100% parameter coverage, the description is adequate for calling the tool. It stops short of explaining operation selection, which is the only notable gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so action, auth_token and content_id are already documented in the schema (including the INFRA_ADMIN_TOKEN note). The description 'Scope clear to a specific content ID' adds nothing the schema does not already state, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource ('the analysis cache') and enumerates the four operations (stats, list, clear, inspect context), which maps cleanly to the action enum. It is distinguishable from most siblings, though it never explicitly positions itself against the nearby infra_configure tool.

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?

Usage is only implied through the action list; there is no statement of when to choose stats vs list vs context, nor any exclusion or prerequisite guidance (e.g., that clear is the mutating path). An agent must infer operation selection from the enum alone.

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