flush_cache

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It conveys the user-visible motive (disk space, cache corruption) but says nothing about irreversibility, whether the project must be idle, or whether media must be re-conformed/re-rendered afterward — relevant for a deletion-style operation.

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?

One sentence, action first, rationale second in parentheses. Nothing redundant and nothing that could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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-param, no-output tool this is nearly sufficient, but with zero annotations the description is the only source of behavioral information and omits post-condition effects (cache rebuilt on next playback, any disruption to open projects). Adequate, not complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the empty schema is self-explanatory. Baseline 4 applies for a param-less tool.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource combination ("Flush the media cache") that an agent can map directly to an action. No sibling tool in the list touches cache state, so there is no ambiguity to resolve against alternatives.

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?

Explicitly states the two situations that call for this tool: freeing disk space and resolving cache issues. It stops short of when-not-to-use guidance or any prerequisite (e.g. save project first), which is why it is not a 5.

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