stalwart_invalidate_caches

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral aspects. It only explains the boolean parameter's meaning but does not state whether the operation is destructive, requires privileges, or has performance impacts. The term 'negative caches only' is unexplained.

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 extremely concise: a two-word action phrase and a structured argument definition. Every word adds value, with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core operation and parameter effect. However, it lacks any context on when cache invalidation is necessary or what side effects to expect, leaving some gaps.

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 schema provides only a boolean with default false and no description. The tool description explicitly maps True to invalidating all caches and False to negative caches only, fully clarifying the parameter semantics.

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 opens with a clear imperative 'Invalidate server caches,' specifying the action (invalidate) and target (server caches). This is distinct from sibling tools like reload_settings or queue management, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stalwart_reload_settings. It fails to mention use cases like 'after configuration changes' or when cache inconsistencies are suspected.

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