performance_clear_system_caches

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

The description lacks annotations, so the full burden falls on the text. It conveys the destructive nature ('clear') and lists cache types, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., performance impact during clearance), required permissions, or rate limits. The behavioral description is adequate but shallow.

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 very concise, using bullet points for cache types and a short usage sentence. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the action and followed by details. No wasted words.

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 (clearing caches) and the presence of an output schema for return values, the description covers the essential aspects: what caches can be cleared and when to use it. It lacks details on side effects or prerequisites, but is otherwise complete for a maintenance tool.

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 100% coverage, with a single nested parameter 'cache_types'. The description adds meaning by explaining each cache type (stock_data, screening, etc.) and their purpose, going beyond the schema's minimal description. This helps the agent understand what each type represents.

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 tool's purpose: clearing specific performance caches. It lists the cache types in a structured manner, distinguishing it from sibling tools like performance_get_cache_performance_status which are for status checking. The verb 'clear' is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this for cache maintenance, testing, or when stale data is suspected.' This guides the agent on when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or suggest alternative tools for related tasks, which would enhance clarity.

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