clear_analysis_cache

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's purpose (clearing cache) and workflow context, but lacks details on behavioral traits like side effects (e.g., performance impact after clearing), permissions needed, or error handling. The 'SAVES' note hints at strategic use but doesn't clarify operational behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first line, followed by structured sections (WORKFLOW, TIP, SAVES). Each sentence adds value, but the formatting with all-caps labels is slightly verbose. It efficiently conveys key information without redundancy.

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 1 parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides good context: purpose, usage guidelines, and workflow integration. It compensates for the lack of annotations with practical tips. However, it could be more complete by detailing behavioral aspects like cache regeneration or performance implications.

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 100%, with the parameter 'filePath' documented as 'Optional: specific file to clear from cache.' The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'for a specific file or all files,' which aligns with the optional parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already fully describes the parameter.

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 action ('Clear') and resource ('multi-file analysis cache') with optional scope ('for a specific file or all files'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_cache_statistics' by focusing on cache clearing rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all potential cache-related tools beyond the listed siblings.

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 includes explicit workflow guidance: 'Start with health_check, use list_functions to explore capabilities' and 'SAVES: Claude context for strategic decisions.' It provides clear when-to-use context ('System diagnostics and function discovery') and mentions alternative tools (health_check, list_functions) for related tasks.

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