Refresh PSN cache

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

The description explicitly discloses that the tool invalidates cached data and that subsequent calls will re-read from live sources, which goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true). This gives the agent a clear mental model of the mutation and its deferred effect.

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 compact: one sentence explains the operation and its effect, and a second sentence gives the usage trigger. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 parameterless cache-refresh tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description explains both what happens and when to call it. No important behavioral or usage detail is missing.

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 the schema fully covers this with an empty properties object. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the baseline for a parameterless tool is appropriate here.

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 ('Drops the cached PSN responses'), the resource (PSN cache), and the intended outcome ('the next call re-reads live data'). This distinguishes it from all sibling read tools such as psn_library or psn_profile.

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 phrase 'Use after the user has just played something' gives a concrete trigger condition for when to invoke the tool. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but for a cache-refresh tool this clear contextual cue is sufficient.

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