get_cache_diagnostics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state there are no side effects, whether diagnostic state is refreshed, or if certain permissions are required. It names what is inspected but omits behavioral details.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action ('Inspect cache diagnostics') and appends the supporting details. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 zero-parameter nature and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately scopes the tool's purpose. It lists the three diagnostic areas covered, which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it and what to expect.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly omits parameter details since none exist, and no additional semantics are needed for this parameterless tool.

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 'Inspect' and names a clear resource: cache hit/miss diagnostics, disk usage, and downloaded files list. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on constraints, concepts, dataflows, structure diagrams, and data retrieval.

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 provides clear context on what data is returned (cache diagnostics, disk usage, files list), making it straightforward to know when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the subject matter is distinct from all sibling tools.

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