get_schema_cache_status

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 operation returns data ('Return freshness...') and implies read-only behavior via 'Return' and the tool name, but it does not explicitly state that no side effects occur, whether authentication is needed, or how invalid connections are handled. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent expecting full transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It communicates the core action and scope efficiently, earning every word's 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 simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It does not explain what 'freshness' or 'last refresh state' entails beyond literal wording, nor does it provide usage context among sibling tools. The output schema likely covers return structure, but behavioral and selection guidance are sparse.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'one or all connections' directly clarifies that connection_id is optional and that null means all connections, while a value targets a specific one. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, which only shows 'string|null' with no explanation. However, it does not define exact output formats or error 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return freshness and last refresh state' for 'connections.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like refresh_schema_cache (which refreshes) and list_connections (which lists connections). It also notes the optional scope ('one or all'), adding precision.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'freshness' implies a use case for checking cache status, the description does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over refresh_schema_cache or other connection tools. There are no exclusions or contextual cues beyond the basic purpose.

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