cache_credentials

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the tool is legacy, saying nothing about whether credentials are stored persistently, security implications, required permissions, or whether the cache can expire or be cleared — all critical for a credential-handling operation.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the brevity comes from omission rather than efficiency — the single fragment conveys almost no actionable information, so the sentence does not fully earn its 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a security-sensitive credential caching tool with an undocumented required parameter and no differentiation from credential siblings, the description leaves major gaps an agent needs filled.

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 single required parameter `domain` has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain what a domain means in this context (host, DNS realm, auth domain). The only parameter is left entirely undocumented in both places.

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?

"Pre-cache credentials" essentially restates the tool name cache_credentials, adding only the vague qualifier "Legacy compatibility." It never states what caching means here (in memory, on disk, per-session) or how it differs from the many credential-related siblings.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance is given, even though siblings ssh_setup_credentials and ssh_clear_credentials clearly overlap. "Legacy compatibility" hints at deprecation but never says whether new callers should avoid it or what to use instead.

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