engine_dev_cache_clear

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not describe side effects (e.g., impact on active sessions, performance, or whether clearing is permanent). It mentions scoping but not what happens if 'unit' is omitted for unit_* types. Lacks depth on 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?

The description is two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the list of cache levels, then provides usage context. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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 tool, the description covers the main usage but omits return value/behavior (e.g., success confirmation) and does not clarify if 'unit' is mandatory for unit_* levels. Given no annotations or output schema, these gaps could hinder correct invocation. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It enumerates all valid values for 'type' and explains that 'unit' scopes unit_* levels, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not specify whether 'unit' is required for unit_* types or how it interacts with non-unit types, leaving some ambiguity.

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 verb 'Clear' and the resource 'cache level', listing exact valid levels (cache, trick, smart, static, unit_cache, etc.). It uniquely identifies the tool's function, distinct from sibling load/save tools. Even without explicit sibling comparison, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'this is for the manual and the wholesale clears', contrasting with automatic cache drops on module/library save. It also explains the role of the 'unit' parameter for scoping unit_* levels, helping the agent decide when to specify it.

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