Cache Rebuild

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 does disclose real behavioral facts beyond the title: the scope ('all caches'), the two-phase nature (clear then rebuild, so nothing is permanently destroyed), and the Drush execution path. It says nothing about performance impact, site availability during rebuild, or required permissions, which for a full-cache operation is a notable omission.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, its scope, and its execution mechanism with no filler. Nothing needs trimming or reordering.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and with zero parameters the schema burden is minimal. However, for a broad cache operation with no annotations, the description omits impact/availability considerations and any routing relative to cache_clear, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Clear and rebuild all Drupal caches') and adds mechanism ('via Drush'), so the action is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from the very similar sibling cache_clear, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives, even though cache_clear sits right beside it in the tool list and is the obvious confusion point. The agent is left to guess whether rebuilding is warranted versus simply clearing.

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