list_cached_responses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that — result ordering, that each entry includes its tables and row counts, and the staleness model (entries older than the cache lifetime keep their data but trigger fresh fetches by request tools). It does not mention pagination limits or whether listing itself refreshes anything, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core action and ordering front-loaded and the staleness caveat after it. The phrase "current is false" appears without an antecedent in the description, a minor ambiguity that costs it a perfect score.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't document return fields, and it correctly spends its words on ordering, entry contents, and the stale-entry lifecycle instead. For a one-parameter read tool with annotations, that is nearly complete; only pagination behavior and explicit sibling routing are missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with a single self-documented `limit` parameter (default 20, max 200), so the schema carries the load and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces ordering ('most recent first') but adds no new meaning about how limit interacts with the cache contents.

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?

"List the responses in the local cache, most recent first, with the tables and row counts each holds" gives a specific verb, resource, ordering, and return content, which separates it from query_cache and export_cache named later in the text. It stops short of explicitly stating the sibling contrast (e.g., 'use list_cached_responses to discover what is available before calling query_cache'), so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is a discovery/inventory call, and the note that stale entries 'can still be queried and exported, but request tools will fetch fresh data' hints at follow-up routing. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or a named alternative such as query_cache or request_table.

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