cache_analytics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only analytics operation and hints at output structure (hit rate, etc.), but does not mention potential costs, rate limits, refresh behavior, or required permissions. The description is adequate but leaves some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 paragraphs long, with a brief introductory sentence and a bulleted list of metrics. It is mostly concise, though the list could be integrated more tightly. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loads the key information.

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?

Given that the tool has no input parameters and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers its purpose and what analytics it provides. It explains the kind of insights available (cache performance, network effects) and how to use it, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline score of 4 applies. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's output and purpose.

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 that the tool provides 'Detailed analytics about cache usage, trust, and network effects' and lists specific metrics like hit rate, most accessed entries, etc. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as cache_stats (likely simpler stats) and cache_list (entry listing), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 says 'Use this to understand how the shared cache is performing and how strong the network effect has become,' which gives context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cache_search or cache_stats. No when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools is provided.

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