cache_similarity_distribution

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses the error condition (errors on agent_cache) and the histogram specifics (20 buckets, width 0.1). It does not explicitly state read-only nature, but the behavior is sufficiently transparent for a read operation.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that front-load the essential purpose and key behavioral trait. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy.

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 tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality and a critical error condition. It lacks details about the range of similarity scores or the output format, but the histogram description is specific enough to be useful.

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 the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which already define each parameter clearly.

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 a histogram of recent similarity scores for a semantic cache, with specific bucket count and width. It distinguishes itself by noting that it errors on agent_cache, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implicitly suggests use only for semantic caches by stating 'Errors on agent_cache', but does not explicitly compare to other tools or provide when-not-to-use scenarios. There is no mention of alternatives among the many sibling cache tools.

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