cache_clean

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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds context that clearing can be scoped to a package, which is useful, but it does not disclose irreversible effects, permission requirements, or possible side effects beyond the annotation.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. The key information—action, scope, optional package filtering—is front-loaded and immediately understandable.

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 simple one-parameter schema, the destructive annotation, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It lacks any mention of return values or edge cases, but these are not critical for such a straightforward operation.

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 already provides 100% coverage with an 'Optional package to target' description. The tool description adds little beyond confirming package-scoped clearing, so it meets the baseline without significantly enriching parameter understanding.

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 tool's action ('Clear') and resource ('cache entries'), and specifies the optional scope ('all' vs 'associated with a package'). This distinguishes it from siblings like cache_size or cache_dir by focusing on the clearing behavior.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cache_prune or update_cache. It does not mention situations where package-specific clearing is preferable, nor does it exclude cases where all cache should be retained.

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