Clear Cache

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the two mutations: cache contents are discarded and counters are reset. It omits the consequences an agent would want — that subsequent source fetches will be slower while the cache repopulates, and whether the reset affects any other client or session. No output schema detail is needed here since one exists.

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, action first and usage condition second, with no padding. Every clause earns its place.

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 no-argument, fully described-output tool this is close to sufficient: an agent knows what is cleared and when to invoke it. The remaining gap is purely the after-effects (rebuild cost, scope of the reset), which matters but is minor for such a simple tool.

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 disambiguate and the baseline applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: "Clear the decompilation source cache and reset counters" tells the agent exactly what state changes, and the decompilation framing separates it from the sibling get_cache_stats (read) without naming it. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with that sibling.

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?

"Use when switching APKs or to free memory" gives two concrete triggering conditions, which is more than most tools offer. There are no exclusions or warnings (e.g., don't call mid-debug-session), so it falls short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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