Clear Attachment Cache

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly states the action (clearing cache files) and its non-destructive nature to actual attachments ('cached' implies originals remain). It also discloses the two behavioral variants, though it does not mention potential side effects like re-downloading on next access, which is a minor 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—two sentences plus three bullet lines. It front-loads the core purpose ('Clear cached attachment files') and uses bullets for parameter guidance without redundancy. Every word contributes value.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the trigger, and the full parameter behavior. It lacks explicit details about side effects or return values, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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 only says 'Clear cache for specific item only'. The description adds critical meaning: omitting itemKey clears all cached attachments, and it frames the parameter as optional. This goes beyond the schema's static description, providing conditional behavior.

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 it clears cached attachment files to free disk space, with a specific verb ('clear') and resource ('cached attachment files'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on cache, not actual items. The bullet points further clarify the two operational modes (specific vs. all).

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 clear usage context: 'to free disk space' and explicit instructions for both providing and omitting itemKey. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a tool of this specificity, the context is sufficient.

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