cleanup_expired_cache

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool removes expired entries and returns a count, but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires specific permissions. It also does not mention potential side effects like locking or performance impact. Compared to the update_drive example, this is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 that front-loads the action and the return value. There is no redundant or filler text. Every word contributes to the understanding of what the tool does, making it appropriately concise and 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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description does convey the primary purpose and the return value. However, given the absence of annotations, it does not fully address behavioral aspects such as side effects, when it is safe to call, or how it relates to sibling tools. An agent might need additional context to use it correctly, especially to distinguish it from 'clear_cache'.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details since there are none. Per the calibration rules, a tool with 0 parameters receives a baseline score of 4, and the description does not introduce any contradictory or confusing information.

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 action ('clean up'), the target ('expired cache entries'), and the outcome ('return the number of entries removed'). It is specific and easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'clear_cache', which could also remove cache entries, though 'expired' suggests a narrower 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'clear_cache' or 'get_cache_stats'. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone, which may lead to ambiguous selection.

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