Deletes cached downloaded images to free up disk space; they re-download when needed. Filter by age or preview with a dry run, then let it clear the rest.
Apaga as imagens baixadas em cache (elas são baixadas de novo quando precisar). older_than_days: só apaga as que não são usadas há mais de N dias (0 = todas). dry_run: só mostra quanto seria liberado, sem apagar.
| 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, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add real value by disclosing that deletion is effectively recoverable (images are re-downloaded) and that dry_run is non-destructive, but it omits scope (which cache/users are affected), permission requirements, and any interruption or locking 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?
Three short lines: the primary effect is front-loaded, followed by one line per parameter. Nothing is redundant, and the parameter notes map cleanly to the schema properties.
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 simple two-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, its recoverability, and both parameters. Only scope and permissions are left unspecified, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.
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 older_than_days as a recency filter with the special value 0 meaning all, and dry_run as a preview that frees nothing. Both parameters gain semantics that the bare schema (types and defaults only) does not convey.
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 and resource, 'Apaga as imagens baixadas em cache' (deletes cached downloaded images), and immediately clarifies the consequence that they are re-downloaded when needed. It does not name a competing sibling, but none of the listed siblings (list_categories, search_items, etc.) overlap with cache clearing, so differentiation is not really required.
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?
Usage context is implied through the parameter explanations (time-based pruning, preview mode) rather than stated as explicit when/when-not guidance. There is no explicit statement of the scenario that should trigger a cache clear, though no alternative tool exists to route away from.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.