show_bilibili_cache_card

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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It says 'clear' early on but never explains whether invoking the tool clears the cache, under what conditions, or whether that is reversible; the status-surface rationale even conflicts with the destructive verb.

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 brief, uses helpful headings (RATIONALE, Return Format, Examples), and front-loads the action. The example line is somewhat redundant but harmless.

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?

The return format is specified, but the core ambiguity about whether a call can clear the cache is not resolved anywhere. An agent cannot safely predict the tool's side effects from this definition, which is a critical gap even for a zero-parameter tool.

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 the schema already defines an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to add. Per the zero-parameter baseline, this is adequately covered.

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 first sentence names a specific resource ('Bilibili response cache') and two actions ('Show and clear'), but the rationale describes only a 'tiny status surface', making it unclear whether this tool is read-only or destructive. It also does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'show_bilibili_status_card'.

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 rationale provides a concrete use case: debugging rate-limit staleness. However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over similar status/display siblings or state explicit exclusions.

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