Cache info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific output content (location and size) but does not introduce any additional behavioral caveats. Since there are no side effects or complex behaviors to disclose, the transparency level is adequate but not enhanced.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and target. Every word is informative, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 (no parameters, read-only, idempotent) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know. There are no missing aspects like return format, side effects, or complex logic to explain.

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 the baseline is 4. The description has nothing to add about parameter semantics because none exist. The lack of parameter info is appropriate and does not hinder usage.

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 'Show' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the location and size of the local PDF/markdown cache.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'clear_cache' and 'search_papers' by focusing solely on cache metadata, so an agent can easily tell what this tool does.

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: an agent would call this to inspect cache details, likely before clearing it. However, there is no explicit mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The purpose is simple enough that the implied context suffices, but the guidance is not explicit.

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