cache_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the response branches by cache type, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention idempotency, side effects, authorization needs, or any other traits beyond the branching.

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 concise with no superfluous words. It front-loads the core purpose and uses a colon to separate the branching details. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., list format), but overall efficient.

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 has 2 scalar parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key response distinction between cache types. However, it lacks details on common response fields or status indicators, which would enhance completeness for an agent.

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%, so parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameters themselves, only about the response structure.

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 'Detailed health for a single cache' with a specific verb and resource. It further differentiates between two cache types (semantic and agent) and lists the fields each reports, making it distinct from sibling tools like get_health or cache_list.

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 implies usage for checking detailed health of a specific cache but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cache_list, cache_tool_effectiveness). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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