get_cached

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: 'without touching the network' (no network calls), and explains the behavior of detail and preferred_only parameters (compact vs full, preferred entries). It does not contradict annotations, and the added context about network-free operation is useful beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences with no filler. The first sentence immediately states the purpose and key constraint (no network), and the second sentence elaborates on parameter details. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, has output schema), the description is incomplete. It only covers the purpose and two parameters. It fails to explain the strategy object, max_tokens, download_dir, modes, and include_refs, which are essential for proper use. The output schema exists but is not referenced; the description should guide the agent on what to expect, but does not.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains two parameters: detail (compact vs full) and preferred_only. The other six parameters (doi, modes, strategy, max_tokens, download_dir, include_refs) are not described, including the complex strategy object. This leaves the agent with insufficient understanding of how to use most parameters, especially the nested strategy input.

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's purpose: 'Look up DOI-proven cached files within one download_dir without touching the network.' This specifies the verb (look up), resource (cached files), and key constraints (DOI-proven, within one download_dir, no network). It differentiates from siblings like fetch_paper (which accesses network) and list_cached (which likely lists all cached items).

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 implies usage for cached file lookups without network access, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like fetch_paper or list_cached, nor does it mention when not to use it. A clear usage context is present, but no exclusions or direct comparisons are made.

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