get_cache_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the operation is non-destructive ('Returns information'), but does not elaborate on potential nuances such as whether the cache might be stale, whether any refresh is triggered, or what happens if no databases are cached. This is adequate for a simple read-only getter but leaves some behavioral traits unstated.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action ('Returns information') and then specifies the scope ('currently cached Android SQLite databases ready to be queried'). There is no fluff or redundant phrasing, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate context by specifying the exact subject (cached databases) and their state (ready to be queried). However, it does not enumerate what 'information' will be returned, which is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a simple status query.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter information to explain. The rubric prescribes a baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters, and the description correctly makes no reference to parameters. It adds no unnecessary parameter-related content.

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 function: it returns information about currently cached Android SQLite databases that are ready to be queried. The verb 'returns' combined with the specific resource ('cached Android SQLite databases ready to be queried') distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_databases, which likely lists all available databases rather than only cached ones.

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 the tool should be used when the user needs information about databases that are already cached and ready for querying. This gives clear context for the primary use case, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tool list_databases might be more appropriate for a complete list, but no exclusions are stated.

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