manage_cache

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

The description discloses that 'clear' wipes the entire cache, which is a significant destructive behavior. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It lacks details on auth requirements, rate limits, or what cache stats include.

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 very concise, with a clear opening statement and a structured args list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted text.

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 (one parameter, clear actions) and the presence of an output schema (so return values are handled externally), the description is complete. It covers what each action does, which is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, but the description fully explains the single 'action' parameter by enumerating the three possible values ('status', 'clear', 'clear_expired') and describing what each does. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Manage' with the resource 'FBI Crime Data response cache', and lists three distinct actions (status, clear, clear_expired). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which are all data retrieval or lookup 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 implies usage for cache management via the actions listed, but does not explicitly state when to use or exclude alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools makes the differentiation clear.

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