limpar_cache

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It correctly states that the tool clears cache, implying destructive action. However, it does not explicitly warn that cached data will be lost, nor does it mention any side effects (e.g., increased load on re-extraction).

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core action and then immediately provide a usage hint. No unnecessary words.

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 simple tool (1 optional param, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers purpose and when to use. It lacks information about return values or confirmation of success, but the context is fairly complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% (the only parameter 'arquivo' is described in the schema). The description adds no new parameter information beyond what is already in the input schema, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: clearing the cache of extracted texts. It also provides a concrete use case ('if you updated a PDF and want to force re-extraction'), distinguishing it clearly from sibling tools that handle other article operations.

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 gives a specific scenario when to use the tool ('after updating a PDF'), which is helpful for the agent. However, it does not explicitly exclude other cases or mention alternatives, though the context is clear.

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