pressable_get_edge_cache_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it disclose any permissions, rate limits, or what constitutes the 'status' (e.g., enabled/disabled, defensive mode). It essentially restates the tool name without adding behavioral 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 a single sentence of ten words, front-loaded with the main action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no filler or redundant information. It is an excellent example of conciseness.

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?

For a simple one-parameter getter, the description is minimally sufficient, but it lacks an output schema and does not explain what the 'status' contains or how it relates to sibling tools like toggle or purge. Without any output description, an agent cannot fully anticipate the response format, and without usage guidance, it may not know when to choose this over alternatives.

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 schema already fully documents the single parameter `id` with a description ('Site ID or name'), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning or usage details about the parameter, so it receives the baseline score without any bonus.

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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('status of edge caching'), and the scope ('for a specific site'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like pressable_toggle_edge_cache and pressable_purge_edge_cache, which perform different operations on the same resource.

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 usage is implied: it is used to retrieve the current state of edge caching. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools (e.g., toggle or purge), nor any mention of alternative tools or exclusions. The description is minimal and does not provide strategic context.

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