cache_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Report' accurately implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description does not elaborate on additional behaviors like whether it requires an active session, the granularity of 'sessions' (active vs. historical), or any performance considerations. It meets the minimum bar but lacks depth.

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 with no redundant phrasing. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and the specific data points reported, earning each word's place.

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 (zero parameters), the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), and 100% schema description coverage, the description is sufficiently complete. It enumerates the key metrics reported, providing enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool without further ambiguity.

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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter meanings to explain. Per the calibration baseline, a tool with 0 parameters receives a 4. The description's enumeration of reported metrics (paper count, disk usage, limits, sessions) adds value by elaborating on the tool's output focus.

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?

Purpose is explicitly stated with a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('cache usage'), enumerating the key metrics (paper count, disk usage, limits, sessions). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_cached (which lists cached papers) and clear_cache (which removes them).

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 clearly indicates the tool is for reporting cache usage, providing a clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools that might be more appropriate for specific tasks, such as list_cached for individual cached items.

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