get_cache_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It clearly indicates a read operation ('get') and specifies the output fields, but does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or any non-obvious behaviors. The minimal description is honest but lacks explicit clarification of safety/authorization.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It directly states what the tool does and what it returns, earning full marks.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent exactly what to expect: cache statistics with hit rate and entry count. No further elaboration is required for safe invocation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately says nothing about parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') with a clear resource ('cache statistics') and enumerates the returned metrics (hit rate, entry count). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_content and get_article, which are content-focused.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any use case such as performance monitoring, nor does it exclude any specific context. With sibling tools being content retrieval, there is no explicit differentiation beyond the resource type.

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