cache_health

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds value by describing conditional response branching based on cache type, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or disclose any side effects, authorization needs, or performance implications.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose concisely, and the second adds critical behavioral detail about response branching. Every word 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 no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the response structure (including field names like 'category_breakdown', 'uncertain_hit_rate', 'tool_breakdown'). It covers the main behavioral nuance but does not address error cases or guarantee completeness for all cache types.

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% for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or usage hints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it provides 'detailed health for a single cache' and differentiates response formats between semantic and agent caches. This verb+resource pairing is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'cache_list' or 'get_health'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'cache_similarity_distribution' or 'cache_tool_effectiveness'. The description does not specify prerequisites, context, or when not to use.

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