clear_cache

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. It states the tool clears caches, implying a destructive mutation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether it's reversible, rate limits, or logging behavior (though 'ctx' parameter hints at logging). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core action. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections add structure, but the 'ctx' parameter explanation is minimal ('FastMCP context for logging'), and the return value description ('Dict with clear operation results') is vague. Overall, it's efficient with minor room for improvement in detail.

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 complexity (destructive mutation with 1 parameter) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but misses behavioral details like side effects or error handling. For a cache-clearing tool, this is adequate but leaves gaps in understanding full implications, scoring as minimum viable with clear improvements needed.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage, listing only 'cache_type' with a default. The description explains 'cache_type' as 'Cache type to clear' with enumerated values ('all', 'law_lookup', 'law_content', 'article'), clarifying its purpose and options. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't detail the 'ctx' parameter beyond 'FastMCP context for logging'.

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 purpose with the verb 'clear' and resource 'cache', specifying it can clear 'specified cache or all caches'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_cache_stats' (which reads) and 'prefetch_common_laws' (which populates). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'batch_find_articles' which might involve caching indirectly, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 prerequisites (e.g., when caches need clearing), exclusions (e.g., avoid during high traffic), or compare to siblings like 'get_cache_stats' for monitoring. Usage is implied only by the action 'clear', with no explicit context for selection.

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