write_cache

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes responsibility for disclosing side effects. It explicitly states that disk side effects cannot be undone and that the operation writes to disk for real. It falls short of covering authorization, overwrite behavior, or failure modes, but communicates the most critical risk.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences: the first states the action and result, the second states the critical side-effect caveat. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It leaves parameter semantics entirely unexplained, gives no return value details beyond 'returns result', and lacks usage context. The irreversible side-effect disclosure is valuable, but the tool cannot be invoked correctly without more parameter guidance.

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 descriptions are completely absent (0% coverage), and the description does not explain 'ctx' or 'node_path' at all. The parameter names provide only weak hints; an agent receives no information about accepted formats, defaults, or how the parameters relate to the cache operation.

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 a specific action ('真实落盘' = actually write to disk) and resource ('cache'), and mentions that it returns results. This distinguishes it from read-only or management cache tools, though the exact cache type or scope is not detailed.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like manage_cache or clear_cache. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as how ctx or node_path should be prepared, or when a different cache-related tool would be more appropriate.

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