feedbin_cache_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Return' signals a non-mutating operation and the three disclosed fields give useful shape to the result (including the on-disk SQLite path, which hints it reads a local store), but nothing is said about auth requirements, cost, or side effects of triggering a poll-time read.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the three returned values. No preamble, no filler — every word carries information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating the three returned values, which is enough for an agent to know what it gets back. The remaining gap is the absence of any note on when to call it versus the other cache tools, which is minor for a zero-argument read.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; per the baseline, a no-param tool starts at 4. The description does not need to add parameter detail and correctly avoids inventing any.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') plus the exact contents returned: cached entry count, SQLite path, and last poll time. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling cache tools (feedbin_cached_entry, feedbin_list_cached_entries) because they return entries while this returns aggregate stats. It stops short of explicitly framing itself as a diagnostic check.

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 mention of 'last poll time' and the cached count implies a diagnostic/health-check use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of the alternative cache-inspection tools (feedbin_list_cached_entries) or when this should be preferred over them.

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