clear_config_cache

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It thoroughly discloses the cache's scope (keyed by file path), lifetime (server process), and the effect of clearing it (next calls re-read from disk). It also clarifies the tool's side effects (invalidates cache, does not modify config files). No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured, beginning with a clear one-sentence summary followed by a concise paragraph linking the cache behavior to practical implications. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded for quick scanning.

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, side-effect-free (non-destructive) utility tool, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what to expect. The presence of an output schema is irrelevant here, but the description does not need to mention return values given the output schema exists. The description is completely adequate for an agent to know exactly when and how to invoke it.

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 the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is trivially complete, and the description adds no parameter documentation because none is needed. However, the description's emphasis on 'no arguments required' is implicit, which is acceptable.

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 tool's function: 'Clear SQLFluff's internal config-file cache.' It uses a specific verb ('Clear'), identifies the resource ('SQLFluff's internal config-file cache'), and differentiates itself from sibling tools like lint_file and fix_file by explaining that it handles cache invalidation, not file operations.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Call this tool after editing any SQLFluff config file to force the next lint_file / fix_file / parse_file call to re-read it from disk.' It also explains the underlying problem (caching) and the consequence of not using it (stale results), giving clear contextual guidance without needing exclusions.

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