tg_cache_clear

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility. It explicitly discloses both destructive behaviors: dropping the cache index and optionally deleting everything in data/downloads. However, it omits details on reversibility or potential side effects, which is a minor gap.

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, well-structured sentence: primary action, usage context in parentheses, and optional action. No redundant wording.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description covers essential behavior and usage context. It does not detail return values (unnecessary) or prerequisites, which are likely common across siblings.

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%, so the description compensates by explaining the 'downloads' parameter's effect ('optionally delete everything in data/downloads'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type/default, though it could explicitly state true/false mapping.

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 identifies the tool's primary action ('Drop the cached chat-title index') and its optional secondary action ('delete everything in data/downloads'), with a specific usage context ('use after chats are renamed'). This definitively distinguishes it from sibling tools like tg_download or tg_delete by focusing on 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 specifies an explicit trigger for use ('after chats are renamed'), giving clear context. It does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but for a singular cache-clearing tool, the context is sufficient.

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