clear_cache

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool clears both 'project and import graph caches' and implies that it invalidates cached state for fresh analysis. This is sufficient for a destructive operation on caches, though it could have noted that this forces recomputation on subsequent calls.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a practical usage note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 cache-clearing operation with no output schema, the description adequately covers what, when, and why. It does not explain return behavior, but that is likely unnecessary for a void side-effectful action. The sibling context shows this is a utility that complements the analysis tools.

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 for its single optional parameter 'projectPath', including a description ('Specific project path to clear (clears all if not provided)'). The description does not add additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already states, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('Clear') and the specific resource ('project and import graph caches'), making it unambiguous what the tool does. It also inherently distinguishes itself from the sibling analysis tools, which are all read-only inspection tools, not cache manipulators.

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 gives a specific, actionable trigger: 'Use this after making changes to files outside the MCP to ensure fresh analysis.' This provides clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but no sibling tool serves the same cache-clearing purpose, so exclusion is not critical.

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