memory_clear_cache

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

Lacking annotations, the description warns about irreversible operation, which is a crucial behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other potential side effects, auth requirements, or system impact beyond the cache file.

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 concise sentences: the first states the action, and the second adds the critical warning. No extraneous information; front-loaded and efficient.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential action and warning. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the operation and required confirmation, though it could hint at when to clear the cache.

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 description coverage is 100% for the sole parameter 'confirm', so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter information beyond the schema's own description.

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 message cache log file (message_cache.jsonl). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that add, cache, or recall messages.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like memory_cleanup_messages or memory_cache_message. Only a warning about irreversibility is given, but no explicit usage context.

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