Cache Flush Tool

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 explains profile scoping, the restriction that a named backend must be in the caller's profile, and the special operator-wide flush behavior, which are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the basic 'flush' action.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds necessary scoping or constraint information. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and an output schema. The description covers all invocation modes and the key profile constraint, so an agent has enough context to call the tool correctly without additional unspecified behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying that omitting the backend flushes 'backends in your own profile and your own aggregate' and that a named backend 'must be in your profile,' going beyond the schema's brief optionality explanation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Flush gateway tool list caches.' It clearly identifies the operation and resource, and the scoping details distinguish it from the sibling tools, which mostly concern content scanning, quarantine, or reconnecting backends.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: no arguments flushes the caller's own backends and aggregate, a backend name flushes that one backend, and an operator profile flushes the whole gateway. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the usage context is unambiguous for the main scenarios.

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