Delete cached images to free disk space; cached files redownload when needed. Optionally remove only images unused for N days, or preview reclaimable space without deleting.
Deletes cached images (they are downloaded again when needed). older_than_days: only delete images unused for more than N days (0 = all). dry_run: only report how much would be freed, without deleting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dry_run | No | ||
| older_than_days | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose a key recovery property (images are re-downloaded when needed) and the dry_run reporting mode, but omits whether the operation is destructive, whether it can be undone, permission requirements, and whether it blocks or is synchronous.
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?
Three tight lines: a purpose statement followed by one line per parameter. Front-loaded and free of redundant filler; each sentence 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 two-parameter, annotation-less mutation tool, the description covers purpose, both parameter meanings, and the re-download behavior. The remaining gap is the absence of any permission, irreversibility, or scope caveats, which is a modest but real omission.
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, and it does: it explains the exact semantics of both parameters, including the non-obvious note that 0 means all and that dry_run reports without deleting. It does not document the types or defaults, but the meaning of each parameter is fully clarified.
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 (Deletes) and resource (cached images), and adds the distinctive trait that they are downloaded again when needed. No sibling tool touches caching, so it is immediately differentiated from the list.
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 effect of each parameter is explained but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of irreversibility, and no condition distinguishing when to prefer dry_run. Usage is implied from the parenthetical and parameter notes rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.