get_cache_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: Enterprise gating and a 403 error on non-Enterprise plans. The only weakness is restating 'Enterprise-gated' twice, and no note on volume or response shape beyond the metric list.

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?

Front-loaded with the gating constraint, then purpose, then scope selection, then the alternative – a logical order. Slightly redundant with 'Enterprise-gated' repeated at the head and tail, which is the only wasted text.

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 an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description only needs to supply gating, scope, and routing context, and it does. The one gap is not clarifying relationship to get_cache_hit_latency and get_cache_hit_rate, which would matter for correct tool selection among this dense analytics sibling set.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every one of the 33 parameters is already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description echoes the three scope-selection params and precedence rules already present in the schema, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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 and resource ('Get cache summary metrics') and enumerates the returned metrics (hits, average cache-hit latency, total requests, percentage speedup). It distinguishes itself from time-series tools, though the reference to 'graph cache tools' is vague and it never names the closer siblings get_cache_hit_latency / get_cache_hit_rate, which overlap heavily with this tool.

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?

Gives explicit scoping alternatives ('Choose workspace_slug, include_all_workspaces=true, or exclude_workspace_slugs') and a when-to-use-else clause ('Use the graph cache tools when you need changes over time instead of one aggregate'). The alternative reference is imprecise – no sibling is actually named 'graph cache' – and the near-identical get_cache_hit_latency/get_cache_hit_rate siblings are left unaddressed.

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