query_cache

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds real operational context beyond them: a hard 2000-row cap and the truncated flag that signals when more rows matched. That truncation behavior is the single most important thing an agent needs to interpret results correctly, and it is disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the data model the agent must reason about. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the one result-side surprise (truncation). It is nearly complete for a two-parameter query tool; the only missing piece is guidance on cache lifecycle relative to the request tools.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema's sql description is itself detailed about semicolon separation, dot-walking, quoting, and the last-returned-statement rule. The tool description only restates that tables are SQLite with TEXT columns, adding no syntax or edge-case meaning not already in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run read-only SQLite against a cached response,' which tells an agent exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings like describe_table, request_table, or export_cache, so differentiation is left to inference.

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: an agent must already hold a cache_name to have any reason to call this. There is no explicit when-to-use versus describe_table or export_cache, and no stated prerequisite that a cache must first be populated by a request tool.

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