Cache Clear Tool

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered, and the description adds a genuine prerequisite beyond them: the caller must hold the empty_cache permission. It does not spell out scope (site-wide vs partial), effect on in-flight or published content, or any rate limiting, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two short clauses with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite. Every phrase carries information the agent needs.

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?

For a zero-parameter, low-complexity mutation with annotations and no output schema, the definition covers action, real-world analogue, and permission requirement. What is missing is a brief note on what the clear affects and whether it is safe to call repeatedly or concurrently.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this dimension scores 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly implies the operation is scoped to the whole site rather than taking a target argument.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Clear the site cache") and anchors it to a recognizable manager action ("Refresh site"), so the agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It does not need to differentiate from siblings since none of the listed siblings touch cache, but it also offers no explicit differentiation.

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 "same as 'Refresh site' in the manager" mapping gives a clear usage context an agent can match to a user request. It provides no exclusions or when-not guidance, but the absence of comparable sibling tools leaves little ambiguity.

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