rebuild_cache

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly states the maintenance nature and the non-destructive boundaries (no download/transcribe/summarize). However, it does not disclose whether 'rebuild' deletes or overwrites the existing cache, or mention any side effects, permissions, or rate considerations.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the most important context ('Maintenance tool'). Every clause adds value: target resource, scope, and explicit exclusions. There is no fluff or repetition.

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?

Although the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description omits any guidance on parameter semantics and when to trigger a rebuild. Given the absence of annotations and 0% schema coverage, this leaves important invocation details unresolved for an agent.

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 provides no explanation for the two parameters 'force' and 'podcast_id'. An agent is left to infer their meaning purely from names and defaults, which is insufficient for a low-coverage schema.

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 states a specific action and resource: rebuilding the SQLite cache. It further distinguishes itself by explicitly listing what it does not do ('不下载、不转录、不摘要'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like download_audio, transcribe_episode, and summarize_episode_extractive.

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 labels this as a 'Maintenance tool' and clarifies it only indexes existing artifacts, giving clear context for when to use it. The explicit exclusions ('不下载、不轉錄、不摘要') help an agent avoid selecting it for content-fetching or processing tasks, though it does not name alternative tools or describe conditions like 'use when cache is stale'.

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