clear_cache

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool clears all cached data, which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't specify what 'all' means (e.g., all caches in the system, user-specific caches), whether this requires special permissions, or what happens after clearing (e.g., performance impact, automatic re-caching). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's function without any fluff or redundant information. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool's complexity (simple destructive operation with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It states what the tool does but doesn't provide context about effects, permissions, or system behavior. For a cache-clearing tool, more information about impact would be helpful, though the simplicity of the operation makes some omissions tolerable.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the schema coverage is complete.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('초기화합니다' - initializes/clears) and resource ('캐시된 데이터' - cached data). It distinguishes from sibling tools which are all 'get' operations, but doesn't explicitly mention this distinction. The purpose is unambiguous but could be more specific about what type of cache or scope.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. The description doesn't mention when this operation is appropriate (e.g., after data updates, to free memory) or any warnings about potential side effects. It simply states what the tool does without context for usage.

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