clear_cache

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool clears the Schema cache and ties that action to schema updates, but it goes little beyond the tool's name and does not describe side effects, scope (global vs. per-schema), or whether the cache is automatically rebuilt. This is adequate for a simple no-parameter operation but not richly transparent.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded ('清除 Schema 缓存'), and the use-case context follows immediately in a second concise sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter utility with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential 'what' and 'when.' It could additionally state what happens after clearing (e.g., cache is rebuilt on next schema access), but that is implied and not a significant gap for this simple 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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to clarify. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description adds no misleading parameter information.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: '清除 Schema 缓存' (clear Schema cache), which precisely names the operation. It is immediately distinguishable from all 40 sibling tools, none of which target cache clearing, and the title/name are not merely restated.

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 gives a clear trigger condition: use this tool when the database structure changes, such as when tables are added or columns are modified. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but none of the sibling tools offer a cache-clearing function, so the guidance is sufficient.

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