get_cache_stats

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states it is a read operation ('Get'), implying non-destructive behavior, but it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as potential performance costs, whether the stats are cumulative or per-request, or if any side effects exist. For a simple read tool this may be adequate, but it adds no nuance beyond the obvious.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and resource without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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, so the description must explain what the agent will receive. It mentions 'detailed cache statistics' and names two cache types, but does not enumerate any actual metrics or return format. An agent cannot predict what fields will be present. For a tool with no parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is 100% covered (vacuously). Per the baseline rule for 0-parameter tools, the description does not need to explain parameters. The description does not attempt to add parameter information, which is correct.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('cache statistics') and explicitly names two cache types (LRU + Prompt). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like clear_cache and cleanup_expired_cache which are mutations, and from optimize_content which is a different operation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus get_stats or other siblings. The description does not state any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer when this is the appropriate choice.

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