brilliant-directories-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool does (clears caches), its limitations (doesn't activate new pages), and its undocumented nature ('Undocumented by BD publicly; exposed via admin API-permissions UI'), which is valuable context. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like performance impact or error handling.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by important caveats and usage context. Every sentence adds critical information (limitations, proper use cases, undocumented status) with zero waste, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 (cache management with specific limitations), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description provides comprehensive context on behavior, use cases, and limitations. It could slightly improve by mentioning response format or error conditions, but it's largely complete for its purpose.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than parameters. A baseline of 4 is applied since it adds meaningful context without redundant parameter info.

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 with specific verbs ('Refresh', 'Clears') and resource ('BD's internal caches for the site'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on cache management rather than CRUD operations on entities like pages or users, which are the focus of all other tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('useful for generic cache invalidation after changes to templates, design settings, etc.') and when not to use it ('does NOT register newly-created page URLs with the router', 'not for page propagation'). It also mentions an alternative method ('manually clicking Save on the record in BD Admin > Manage Pages') for activating new pages.

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