get_cache_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: Enterprise-plan gating and a concrete failure mode (403 on non-Enterprise plans), which an agent needs to predict errors. It says nothing about rate limits or the shape of the aggregate response, but the output schema covers the latter.

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 core sentence is well front-loaded and the alternative-routing sentence earns its place. However, 'Enterprise-gated' appears twice (opening and closing), which is redundant padding rather than added 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?

For a 31-parameter, output-schema-backed read tool, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: the aggregate-vs-timeseries routing and the Enterprise gating constraint. It is nearly complete, missing only guidance on the many optional filters and how they interact.

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% across all 31 parameters, so the schema already documents filters, legacy-vs-structured aliases, and formats. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g. which filters are honored, default behavior for omitted optional filters), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 for one workspace and time range') and enumerates the returned metrics (hits, avg cache-hit latency, total requests, percentage speedup), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It differentiates from the graph cache tools but not from close siblings like get_cache_hit_latency or get_cache_hit_rate, which overlap in subject matter.

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 an explicit selection rule against an alternative class: 'Use the graph cache tools when you need changes over time instead of one aggregate.' That is clear when-to-use guidance, though it never addresses when to prefer this over the per-metric cache siblings (get_cache_hit_latency, get_cache_hit_rate).

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