clear_cache

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does usefully state what gets destroyed (on-disk cached files for a specific node) and the frame_range scoping limit, but it omits irreversibility, whether files in use by a running sim are affected, and permission/confirmation requirements — notable gaps for a destructive delete.

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 purpose is front-loaded and compact, but the boilerplate 'Args:' block weakens it — 'ctx: MCP context' documents a non-parameter and wastes a line, and the param notes are terse. Acceptable but not tight.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It should warn about permanence, describe what a caller gets back, and specify when to use it versus write_cache/list_caches. As-is, an agent lacks what it needs to invoke this safely.

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 must compensate. It adds real meaning for node_path ('Path to the cache node') and clarifies frame_range as '[start, end] frame range to limit deletion', which is more than the bare schema. However, the 'ctx' entry is not an actual schema parameter and the frame_range null/default behavior is unaddressed.

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 + resource: 'Delete cached files on disk for a cache node.' This clearly separates it from the read-oriented siblings list_caches/get_cache_status and from write_cache. It does not, however, explicitly name an alternative, so it falls just short of full sibling 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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance is given. It never says how clear_cache relates to write_cache (e.g. to invalidate a stale cache before rewriting), nor when frame_range should be omitted versus set. Usage must be inferred entirely from the one-line purpose.

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