clear_cache

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

Annotations already establish that this is not read-only and not idempotent; the description adds the concrete target directories, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the directories are emptied recursively, whether running applications are affected, or what the result looks like, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single short sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and immediately identifies the affected paths.

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 zero-argument maintenance operation with annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the essential information: what is cleared. It does not specify current-user vs. all-user cache scope or the return value, but those are minor gaps for this simple tool.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is a 4.

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 names a specific verb ('Clear') and specific resources ('/tmp and user cache directories'), so an agent can tell what the tool targets. It is slightly less crisp than a full sentence with intended effect, but it is not a tautology and does not overlap ambiguously with delete_path in the sibling list.

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?

There is no guidance about when to call clear_cache instead of related tools such as delete_path or clear_clipboard. The description implies the use case for freeing temporary storage but never states it, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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