pix_clear_capture_cache

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

The description meaningfully adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies that cached artifacts are deleted and that subsequent queries will re-extract them. This is consistent with the annotations (idempotent, not read-only, non-destructive to source data) and gives the agent a clear mental model of the operation's effect.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It conveys the action, the target, and the consequence efficiently, earning every word it uses.

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 one-parameter cache-clearing tool, this description is nearly complete. It covers the core behavior and effect, and the presence of an output schema means return-value details are not required in the description. The main gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance, but the tool's simplicity keeps this from being a major deficiency.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the parameter. 'For a capture' only mirrors the parameter name 'capture_id' and adds little detail about what the capture identifier refers to or how to obtain it. The agent must infer the parameter semantics from the parameter name alone.

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 action ('Delete cached artifacts') and a specific resource ('for a capture'), plus the intended consequence ('so the next query re-extracts them'). This clearly identifies the tool's purpose among many capture-query siblings, though it does not explicitly name which sibling it is not.

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 implies when to use this tool: before a query when cached artifacts should be re-extracted. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like re-opening or recapturing a capture.

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