clear_cache

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description confirms the tool clears caches (a mutation that is safe and idempotent). It adds context beyond annotations by detailing the specific cache types cleared and noting the effect of the scope parameter. No contradiction.

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?

The description is minimal: two sentences covering the action and a use case. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded. No extraneous information.

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 tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and informative annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter behavior. No gaps are evident.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, and the description explains the meaning of the 'scope' parameter in plain language ('galaxy', 'docs', or all), aligning with the schema's description. This adds value by clarifying what each scope clears, despite no new syntax details.

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 clearly states the action ('Clear server caches') and specifies the resources affected (Galaxy version/docs-blob caches, doc manifest/page caches). The tool name is self-explanatory, and sibling tools (e.g., fetch_doc, search_collections) are unrelated, so it is well-distinguished.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Useful when cached data becomes stale during long-running sessions.' It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but given the tool's unique function among siblings, this is sufficient guidance.

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