oracle_forget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature (clearing cache) and the effect on reads, but it does not detail potential side effects, authorization needs, or error states. Some transparency is present but could be richer.

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 filler. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes a relevant consequence. Every sentence adds 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 a single parameter, no annotations, and an existing output schema (not shown), the description provides the core function and effect. However, it lacks usage context, error handling, or dependencies (e.g., must have previously read the file). It is minimally 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not add any additional meaning for the 'path' parameter beyond what the schema provides (type string, required). The parameter is obvious, but the description should have explained path format or allowed values to compensate for low coverage.

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 the file cache') and the resource ('for a path'). It also explains the consequence ('next oracle_read returns full content'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like oracle_read and oracle_grep. The purpose is specific and non-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 implies usage when one wants to force a fresh read, but it does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use this tool. No alternatives are mentioned, nor are any preconditions or exclusions provided.

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