Report Aimnis flywheel statistics: knowledge-pool (cache) size, cache hit rate (all-time and recent), and the most-reused queries.
This is the Gate 1 pass/kill metric — cache hit rate should climb as the
corpus grows. Call it to see whether the compounding-pool thesis is holding.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds specific details on what statistics are reported (cache size, hit rates, queries), going beyond the annotations without contradiction.
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?
Two sentences, each essential. First sentence states what the tool reports; second gives the business context and motivation. No verbose or redundant content.
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, read-only tool with an output schema, the description explains the returned metrics and the strategic reason to call it. This provides complete context for proper usage.
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?
Input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but baseline for 0 params is 4. No explanation needed.
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 reports Aimnis flywheel statistics (cache size, hit rate, most-reused queries). The verb 'report' and specific resource are explicit, distinguishing from sibling tools 'register' and 'search'.
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 a clear usage context: 'Call it to see whether the compounding-pool thesis is holding' and identifies it as a Gate 1 pass/kill metric. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool comparisons, but 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: register for API key, search for queries, stats for cache metrics. No overlap.
All tool names are single, lowercase words, but they mix verb (register, search) and noun (stats). Consistent style but not a strict pattern.
Three tools is minimal but reasonable for a search server covering key management, search, and stats. Could benefit from one or two more.
Covers core operations: registration, search, and metrics. Missing cache management or detailed entry inspection, but sufficient for basic use.