tldr_warm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at the non-destructive nature (pre-building a cache) but does not detail behaviors such as idempotency, error handling, or storage location. For a simple caching tool, this is adequate but could be more explicit.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words or repetition. It earns its 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose and usage context. However, it might benefit from mentioning whether the cache is overwritten or if the tool returns a success indication, but overall it is sufficient.

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 100%, with the 'path' parameter well-documented as 'Project path (absolute).' The description does not add extra detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline. No additional semantics are provided.

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 tool's purpose: 'Pre-build call graph cache for faster queries.' It uses a specific verb ('pre-build') and resource ('call graph cache'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by indicating that it should be run once per project before using other tldr tools.

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 usage guidance: 'Run once per project before using other tldr tools.' This tells the agent when to use it (once at start) and hints at its role as a prerequisite. It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, 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.