learned

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Cache' without explaining persistence, overwrite semantics, scope, or how cached items are retrieved. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'cache', no wasted words. It concisely conveys the action and object.

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?

The tool is a simple cache operation, but the description lacks integration with sibling tools and doesn't explain the lifecycle of cached items (e.g., whether they can be recalled later). Given that the schema is complete but the overall narrative is thin, the description is not fully self-sufficient.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema's own field descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'cache' and resource 'problem/solution pair', clearly indicating the action. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'mistake' or 'recall', but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The context of sibling tools suggests a memory system, but the description alone only implies caching after a problem is solved, leaving the exact usage scenario implicit.

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