cache_clear

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds important behavioral context: it performs a 'bulk DELETE,' clears all tables when table is omitted, and offloads to a worker thread to avoid blocking the event loop. These details go beyond the annotations and are valuable for an agent assessing 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 description is front-loaded with a one-line purpose, followed by a brief implementation note and an Args section. The offload explanation references internal docstrings (`_cache_clear_impl`, `health_check`) that may not be available to the agent, but it is still compact and contains no redundant filler.

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 simplicity—one optional parameter, no enums, and an output schema—the description adequately covers purpose, destructive scope, and parameter behavior. It does not enumerate available table names, but that is likely an external concern and not needed for correct selection and invocation.

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 only defines an optional table parameter with a string or null type and a default of null. The description provides the essential semantic meaning: 'Table name to clear. Clears all tables when omitted.' This fully compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage.

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 opens with 'Clear cached data,' a specific verb+resource statement. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as cache_status, making the tool's purpose immediately obvious.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The intended usage is implied by the tool name and the first sentence, but the description does not state, for example, when cache clearing is preferable to cache inspection or what preconditions apply.

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