kimi_cache_invalidate

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

The description discloses that not providing work_dir clears all caches, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., impact on ongoing analyses) or permission requirements. Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden and is mostly transparent.

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, each efficient and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives usage context. No wasted words.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is complete: it explains what it does, when to use it, and how the parameter affects behavior.

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 100% coverage with one parameter described. The description adds critical semantics: 'If not provided, ALL caches are cleared.' This goes beyond the schema's parameter description, clarifying the default behavior.

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 tool's function: manually invalidate session cache entries. It uses a specific verb ('invalidate') and resource ('session cache entries'), and distinguishes it from siblings like kimi_cache_status and kimi_analyze.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when you want to force fresh analysis or if you suspect cached sessions are stale.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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