cache_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned fields and a key side effect: dependent tools return errors and prompt retries when the cache is not ready. It does not cover permissions or whether the call itself mutates state, but for a status query it adds meaningful operational context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and return fields, then quickly states the conditional failure behavior. Every sentence carries useful information with no redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and behavior. It does so adequately by listing the status fields and describing the dependent-tool failure mode. It could mention how to resolve a non-ready cache (e.g., refresh_cache) for fuller completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage and fully documents the single required instance_id parameter, including guidance to use instance_list first. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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: querying the local SQLite static cache status of a specified IDA instance. It also enumerates return fields (status, last_updated, table counts). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling refresh_cache tool, which is the closest alternative.

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 implies when the tool matters by explaining that dependent tools (find_regex, entity_query, list_funcs, etc.) fail when status is not 'ready'. It does not explicitly say when to call cache_status versus alternatives, nor does it mention refresh_cache as a remedy, leaving usage context only implied.

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