Clear Cache

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, and the description is consistent with them while adding the useful nuance that only cached API/reference data is discarded, not business records. It does not mention the cost of the operation (subsequent calls refetch upstream), which would have made it 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 sentences, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the usage conditions immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-optional-parameter cache utility with no output schema, purpose and trigger conditions are fully covered. The only omission is whether clearing 'all' affects other active connections or other users, a detail the schema hints at but does not explain.

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 single 'scope' parameter has 100% schema description coverage including an enum and a stated default, so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds no scope semantics of its own; baseline 3 applies.

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: clearing the e-arveldaja API cache and reference data, which is concrete enough to distinguish it from data-mutating siblings like delete_client or invalidate_journal. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearest sibling, clear_session_log, but the resource named ('cached API and reference data') is 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?

Gives two concrete trigger conditions: after out-of-band edits in the e-arveldaja web UI, and before reports that must reflect the latest upstream state. This is clear when-to-use guidance, though it names no exclusions or alternative tools for the same need.

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