clear_cache

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating a non-read-only, safe, and repeatable operation. The description adds value by specifying 'in-memory cache' and clarifying safety ('no YNAB data is modified'), which goes beyond annotations to explain scope and reassure about data integrity, though it doesn't detail side effects like performance impact.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that concisely states the action and key safety assurance. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text, making it highly efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 (0 parameters, annotations covering safety and idempotency, and an output schema present), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and its safety, though it could briefly mention expected outcomes (e.g., cache reset confirmation) for full context, but the output schema mitigates this gap.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters, as it efficiently focuses on purpose without redundancy.

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 action ('Clear') and target ('in-memory cache'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on cache management rather than data operations like transactions or accounts, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 context through 'safe, no YNAB data is modified,' suggesting it's for cache maintenance without data risk. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., for performance issues) or provide exclusions, leaving guidance implied rather than direct.

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