Get cache statistics — size and item count.
Useful for monitoring cache utilization and deciding when to clear.
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves size and item count, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly mention non-destructiveness, side effects, or any operational constraints. This is adequate but missing explicit safety confirmation.
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 sentences that are concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It contains no redundant information and every phrase adds 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 tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states what is returned (size, item count) and the practical use case. Nothing critical is missing.
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, so the schema coverage is trivially complete and the description correctly omits parameter details. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate.
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 action ('Get cache statistics') and the specific output details ('size and item count'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like clear_cache and fetch_markdown by focusing on statistics rather than mutation or data fetching.
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 context for when to use the tool: 'for monitoring cache utilization and deciding when to clear.' It implies a relationship with clear_cache but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of the highest score.
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.
fetch_url and fetch_markdown both fetch URLs, but fetch_url returns raw HTML+markdown while fetch_markdown returns only markdown, which is a clear distinction. check_domain, cache_stats, and clear_cache are all distinct. The overlap is minor and well-handled by descriptions.
Most tools use a verb_noun pattern: check_domain, clear_cache, fetch_markdown, fetch_url. cache_stats deviates slightly, being a noun_noun phrase, but it's still clear and consistent enough.
With 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for a fetch/cache utility. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers the core lifecycle: fetching with two output formats, cache inspection, cache clearing, and domain health checks. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose of reliable fetching with caching and circuit breaking.