rag_cache_clear

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds genuinely new context: the effect is a full drop of cached retrievals and a source rebuild on the next query, which implies latency/cost the agent should anticipate. It doesn't address scope (per-session vs global) or authorization.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the action front-loaded and the usage condition following. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 zero-argument, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers what happens, what it affects downstream, and when to invoke it. Missing only edge details such as behavior on an empty cache and the blast radius across sessions, which the idempotent annotation partially mitigates.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description's reference to "all cached retrievals" usefully confirms the operation is unfiltered and takes no arguments.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Clear the LAZY-RAG cache") and immediately explains the mechanism: cached retrievals are dropped and the next rag_query rebuilds from source. This distinguishes it clearly from rag_cache_stats (read stats) and rag_query (consumes the cache).

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: "Use when the underlying context has changed and you want fresh results instead of cached ones." It names rag_query as the tool whose behavior changes, but stops short of stating when NOT to clear (e.g. cache is already fresh) or naming the stats sibling as a diagnostic alternative.

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