清理缓存

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that keys can be cleared but does not mention side effects, irreversibility, or potential performance impact after clearing. For a destructive operation, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 extremely concise, using two short phrases to communicate the core behavior. It is well front-loaded, though it could include a bit more structure around usage without sacrificing brevity.

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 that this is a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter, the description still lacks essential context about side effects and when to invoke it. The simple structure does not compensate for the missing behavioral and usage details.

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 schema description fully covers the single parameter 'key', including the default behavior when left empty. The description simply repeats the same semantics without adding extra detail or clarification, so it does not exceed the baseline for high schema 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 clearly states the action ('clear') and resource ('cache'), specifying two modes: clearing a specific key or all cache. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool cache_status, which is about viewing cache state.

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 like cache_status. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when clearing all cache might be preferred over a specific key.

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