clear_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. '清除所有缓存数据' implies a destructive mutation (clearing all cache), but it doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, requires authentication, has side effects (e.g., temporary slowdown), or returns confirmation. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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 ('清除所有缓存数据') with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. No extraneous words or structural issues are present.

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 (destructive mutation with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions needed, confirmation process, or impact on system performance. For a tool that clears all cache data, this minimal description leaves critical operational gaps.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, as there are none. It appropriately focuses on the tool's action without redundant parameter details, meeting the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 '清除所有缓存数据' (Clear all cache data) clearly states the tool's action and resource with a specific verb ('清除' - clear) and target ('所有缓存数据' - all cache data). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_cache_stats' (read-only) and 'search_trials' (different resource), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions), consequences (e.g., performance impact), or when to avoid it (e.g., during peak usage). With siblings like 'get_cache_stats' for monitoring, the description fails to help the agent choose between read and write operations.

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