get_material_cache

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes beyond them by specifying scope ('현재 계정의 로컬' cache) and enumerating the exact values returned, which matters because there is no output schema – though it stops short of units for the capacity figure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the returned metrics listed compactly. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

Zero parameters, full annotation coverage, and no output schema – the description compensates by naming the three values it reports, which is exactly what is needed. The only gap is that it does not specify the unit/format of the capacity value or how the result is presented.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly avoids describing non-existent inputs.

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?

States a specific verb (확인합니다 – check/report) and a precise resource (the current account's local material cache), plus the three metrics returned (capacity, file count, index count). It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_materials, search_materials, or index_materials, though it never names an alternative to distinguish itself explicitly.

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 purpose implies a diagnostic/status-check use case, so an agent can infer when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance versus get_source_status or index_materials, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., whether a login or prior sync is required).

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