cwv_generate_cache_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It says the tool generates files, but does not state whether it returns content, writes to the filesystem, overwrites existing files, or any other side effects. It also omits details about security configuration scope. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists targets. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 three-parameter generator with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but omits the output format (file content vs. path) and does not mention the configurable TTL parameters. It is minimally adequate but leaves an agent needing to infer what the tool actually returns and how parameters map to behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already states; it does not explain how html_ttl_seconds or static_asset_ttl_days affect the generated headers, or that the defaults enforce immutability. It relies entirely on the schema, which is adequate but not enhanced.

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 ('Generate') and resource ('caching headers and security configuration files'), then enumerates the exact target platforms. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cwv_audit_site (auditing) or cwv_optimize_html (optimization), which share no overlap.

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 target list ('Netlify, Vercel, Nginx, Next.js, Cloudflare, or Apache') implies when to use it, but the description never explicitly states 'use this when...' or identifies alternatives. There are no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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