clear_global_runner_cache

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the operation and the HTTP route; it does not say what is invalidated, whether jobs are interrupted, or whether the runner must be stopped.

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 terse sentences with the action front-loaded and no wasted clauses. The endpoint string adds little for an agent but costs almost nothing.

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?

This is a destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, yet the description provides no risk context, no prerequisite, and no notion of what state changes. Given the complexity profile, it is too thin.

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% for the single required parameter, and the description only embeds it in a URL template (DELETE /runners/{runner_id}/cache). It does not clarify whether runner_id refers to a global runner ID (versus a project runner) or where the ID can be obtained.

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 states a specific verb+resource (clear global runner cache) and even names the underlying endpoint, so the operation is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like clear_project_runner_cache or clear_server_cache, but the resource name itself carries that 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?

There is no guidance on when to clear the cache versus the sibling clear_project_runner_cache or clear_server_cache, nor any precondition such as the runner needing to be idle or inactive. The agent must infer selection purely from the tool name.

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