4D Documentation Viewer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'removes all cached documentation files,' indicating a destructive operation, and explains the effect ('forcing fresh fetches'). However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error handling, or confirmation prompts, which are relevant for a cache-clearing tool.

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 zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second explains the effect. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, with every sentence earning its place by adding value.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers what the tool does and the outcome. However, for a destructive operation, it could benefit from mentioning potential side effects or confirmation steps, slightly reducing completeness.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description adds no unnecessary param info.

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 specific action ('Clear') and target resource ('local cache of 4D documentation'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_4d_command_docs (fetch) and open_4d_command_in_browser (open in browser). It precisely defines what the tool does without being tautological.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('forcing fresh fetches on subsequent requests'), implying it should be used when cached documentation is stale or problematic. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as whether to use it before or after other operations.

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