invalidate_graph_cache

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the side effect of invalidating the cached graph and the direct consequence for later tool calls: 'subsequent impact analysis reflects the new state.' It does not discuss idempotency or performance, but those are minor for a no-parameter invalidation operation.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The action is stated first, and the usage guidance follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 parameter-free cache invalidation tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to invoke it. It is complete relative to the tool's complexity.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4; the description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Invalidates the cached dependency graph.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like get_impact and get_dependencies, which query rather than mutate state.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it: 'after making changes to files.' It does not name alternatives or describe when not to use it, but for a cache-invalidation tool the usage context is clear.

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