cache_clear

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 states the tool is 'Idempotent' and 'safe after manual graph edits,' which reveals important safety properties. However, it omits details about potential performance impacts or the exact nature of 'busting' caches, leaving some ambiguity.

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 concise at two sentences, delivering the core purpose and key behavioral traits efficiently. The inclusion of 'v12.5.0' adds minor noise but does not detract significantly from conciseness.

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 simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential action and safety. However, it does not mention the return value or confirmation of success, which would improve completeness for an agent.

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 tool has no parameters, so the description is not required to add parameter-specific meaning. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not contradict or add misleading information.

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 verb 'Bust' and the specific resource 'all four global search caches,' making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes itself from siblings like cache_stats and clear_expired_memories by targeting search caches specifically.

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 explicitly recommends use 'after manual graph edits to drop stale results,' providing clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools, but given the unique purpose, this guidance is sufficient.

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