cache_tool_effectiveness

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an error case (INVALID_CACHE_TYPE on semantic_cache) and hints at read-only behavior (hit rate, cost saved), but does not explicitly state side-effects or permissions. It adds value beyond the schema but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 a single sentence plus an error note, containing no fluff. Every word contributes to the tool's understanding, making it concise and well-structured.

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 (2 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose and an error condition. It could detail the return format, but the listed outputs (hit rate, cost saved, TTL recommendation) provide sufficient context for use.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond implying cache_name is the target. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Per-tool hit rate, cost saved, and TTL recommendation for an agent_cache', which specifies the tool's function and differentiates it from siblings like cache_health or cache_similarity_distribution. The verb 'effectiveness' and the listed outputs give a precise purpose.

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 retrieving effectiveness metrics but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or exclude scenarios. The error condition provides one constraint, but no when-not or alternative guidance is given.

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