Clear Local PageSpeed Cache

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

Beyond the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the cache is in-memory and process-local, later calls will contact Google again, and the tool does not alter the target website or remote data. This gives the agent a clear mental model of side effects.

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?

Three compact sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and effect, the second gives the recommended trigger, and the third clarifies safety and non-destructiveness. The most relevant information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema and no nested objects, the description fully covers what the agent needs to decide when to call it and what to expect. No critical behavioral or scoping details are missing.

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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because the description correctly focuses on behavior instead.

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 verb ('Clear') and resource ('this server process's in-memory PageSpeed response cache'), and explicitly contrasts the scope with other tools. This clearly differentiates it from sibling analysis tools like pagespeed_analyze_page or pagespeed_get_field_data.

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 an explicit use case: use after a deploy when a cached result is stale. It also states what it does not do, preventing misuse. However, it does not name specific alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, leaving a small gap.

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