zen_cache

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions actions but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether clearing is destructive, if status is read-only, or any rate limits). For a mutating tool, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise, with a single sentence defining the purpose followed by a bullet-style args list. Every sentence is informative, and there is no redundant or missing structure.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the actions and parameter dependencies. However, it omits details about return values (e.g., what status returns) and potential side effects of clearing the cache, which are important for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning by specifying the allowed values for action ('clear', 'status', 'ttl') and the conditional requirement for seconds. This compensates for the schema's lack of enums or 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 'Control the ZenLink bridge response cache' clearly indicates the tool's function of managing a cache. It differentiates from siblings like zen_clear_browsing_data or zen_broadcast, which have different purposes. However, 'control' is somewhat vague; a more specific verb like 'manage' or 'configure' would be clearer.

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 lists the possible actions (clear, status, ttl) and provides conditional guidance for the seconds parameter ('TTL value when action is ttl'). This gives basic usage direction but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites.

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