PCM

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Clear CCXT cache' implies a destructive operation that removes cached data, but it doesn't specify what gets cleared (e.g., exchange metadata, rate limits), whether it's reversible, if it requires special permissions, or any side effects like temporary performance impact. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature (implied by 'clear'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'CCXT cache' entails, what data is affected, or what the result looks like (e.g., success confirmation, error handling). For a mutation tool with zero structured metadata, this is insufficient.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 'Clear CCXT cache' clearly states the action (clear) and the resource (CCXT cache), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'clear-exchange-cache', but the specific mention of 'CCXT' provides some differentiation. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling comparison.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to invoke it (e.g., after configuration changes, to free memory, or resolve stale data), nor does it reference the sibling tool 'clear-exchange-cache' for comparison. Usage context is entirely absent.

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