get_cache_status

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states '只读' (read-only) and notes that unknown types return 'unsupported_cache_type', providing error-handling context. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or output format, but the disclosed traits are useful.

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 compact two-clause sentence that conveys purpose and a key behavioral trait without waste. It front-loads the core action and keeps the read-only note at the end.

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 and no parameter descriptions, the description leaves significant gaps, particularly around ctx and the structure of the returned summary. However, it covers the basic purpose and one error case, making it minimally viable for a simple read tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It implies node_path refers to a cache node path, but ctx is entirely unexplained. The description does not define the expected format or semantics for either parameter.

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 the specific verb '读取' (read) and identifies the resource as 'cache 节点 status 摘要' (cache node status summary), clearly distinguishing it from mutation tools like manage_cache or clear_cache. It also notes behavior for unknown types, reinforcing its 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 states '只读' (read-only), implying use for querying status without side effects. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so the usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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