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 behavioral burden. It clearly states what gets destroyed (name-to-UUID cache entries), the available scopes, and the exact return dict keys and their meanings. This gives an agent a solid mental model of the operation's 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?

The first sentence is a clear, front-loaded summary. The Args and Returns sections are tightly written with no redundant or promotional fluff, and every sentence earns its place by explaining a concrete aspect of invocation or output.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it covers the parameter semantics, default behavior, and the return contract. Nothing an agent needs to call the tool correctly is 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the only parameter 'scope' is documented entirely in the description. The description explains each enum value ('workspaces', 'items', 'all'), its effect, and the default behavior, adding semantic meaning well beyond the bare schema enum.

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 ('Erase') and a precise resource ('cached workspace and item name-to-UUID mappings'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It is distinct from siblings like clear_table because it targets name-resolution cache entries, not table 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. It explains what the tool does and the scope options, but usage context (e.g., 'use when cached mappings are stale') is left unstated.

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