Refresh Metadata Cache

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

The description discloses that the tool clears in-memory cache entries, which is a mutating (destructive) operation. It mentions scoping by schema or table and the active profile. However, without annotations, the agent lacks information about side effects (e.g., whether clearing the cache affects other users or sessions), required permissions, or the impact on subsequent metadata queries. The transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Clear in-memory metadata cache entries') and immediately adds the scoping qualifier. Every word serves a purpose; there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool.

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 has 3 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values (success/failure, number of entries cleared), prerequisites, or the effect on other profiles. For a mutation tool, critical context (e.g., idempotency, performance impact) is missing. The description covers only the basic purpose and scope.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'optionally scoped by schema or table', which maps conceptually to the 'schema' and 'table' parameters. However, it does not explain how these parameters interact (e.g., whether table requires schema), the meaning of the 'profile' parameter (which overrides the 'active profile'?), or any default behavior. The compensation is partial and leaves ambiguity.

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 action ('clear'), the resource ('in-memory metadata cache entries'), and the scope ('for the active profile', 'optionally scoped by schema or table'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `ob_get_cache_status` which retrieves cache status, or `ob_get_object_metadata` which retrieves metadata without clearing. The specificity of verb and resource makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage when clearing the metadata cache is desired, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., `ob_capture_metadata_snapshot` or `ob_describe_table`). There is no mention of preconditions, consequences, or situations where this tool is inappropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and purpose alone.

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