Manage Cache Health

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does mention 'invalidate stale data,' which signals a destructive operation, but it does not explain the scope of invalidation (e.g., all caches vs. component-specific), whether changes are reversible, or potential side effects on downstream tools. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a mutation-capable tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that enumerates three key operations without filler or redundancy. It could be slightly more explicit about scope, but it earns its place as a concise summary.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (3 parameters, 4 enum actions) and no output schema or annotations. The description covers the high-level actions but leaves important contextual gaps such as what 'upstream changes' means, what data is returned, and safety implications of invalidation. The schema partially compensates, but overall the description is adequate yet incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (action, framework, componentName) having a descriptive explanation. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, landing at the baseline score 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 identifies the resource (cache) and the actions (check status, verify upstream changes, invalidate stale data). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_material_components and get_design_tokens by focusing on cache health management rather than content retrieval or generation.

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 when to use the tool (when needing to check cache status, verify upstream changes, or invalidate stale data) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives. Context from sibling names suggests it is the only cache management tool, but that is inferred rather than stated.

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