cache_flush_tool

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

Without any annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (flush caches) but does not mention potential side effects such as performance impact, cache rebuilding time, or whether the operation is safe to call frequently. The description is truthful but lacks depth in behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words. The structure clearly separates the default behavior from the variant with a backend.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no required, output schema exists), the description covers all variations. It does not explain error handling (e.g., invalid backend name) but this is minor. Overall, it provides sufficient information for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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% and the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. It restates that omitting the backend flushes all and providing a name flushes that backend. This matches the schema's default null. The description does not introduce new semantic information, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 flushes gateway tool list caches, with a specific verb 'flush' and resource 'gateway tool list caches'. It distinguishes between flushing all caches (no args) and a specific backend, differentiating it from all sibling tools which are related to scanning and quarantine, not cache management.

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 clear usage guidance: no arguments flushes all caches, specifying a backend flushes only that backend. This helps the agent decide when to use each variant. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives, which would be helpful for a cache management tool.

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