cimd_clear_cache

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It states the action (force re-fetch), scope (all cached metadata), and admin requirement, but does not describe side effects like performance impact or cache invalidation consequences.

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 with no filler. The Returns line is slightly redundant given the output schema, but it does not detract from the overall conciseness.

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 the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, output schema present), the description covers purpose, scope, and access level. It does not explain when to use it or relationships to siblings, but the absence of parameters and presence of output schema reduce the burden.

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 has no parameters, so the schema is trivially covered. The description adds no parameter semantics, which is acceptable given zero parameters; baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Force re-fetch all cached CIMD metadata') and identifies it as an admin tool. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cimd_cache_info, which likely inspects cache state.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only notes it is an admin tool, but does not contrast with cimd_cache_info or state prerequisites for invocation.

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