cache_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not repeat those. The description confirms the tool returns status without side effects. It adds minimal context beyond annotations, such as describing the specific cache sources (workbook and SQLite). No contradictions.

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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. No wasted words—every part is necessary. Front-loaded with the action verb 'Return' and the resource.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no complex behavior), the description is fairly complete. It names the cache sources and indicates the return action. An output schema exists, so return value details are covered there. Slightly improved by mentioning both 'local workbook' and 'derived SQLite'.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage. Per scoring rules, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter information.

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 the tool returns cache status for local workbook and derived SQLite. It is specific about the resource (cache status) and action (return). It distinguishes from siblings like refresh_cache by focusing on retrieval rather than refreshing. However, it could be more precise about what 'derived' means.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like refresh_cache or other status-related tools. The description does not specify contexts or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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