cache_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only inspection via 'Report', but does not state whether it mutates anything, whether both parameters may be supplied together, what happens when both are null, or what 'holds' concretely means (e.g., existence, metadata, document segments).

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 with no filler, and the core idea is front-loaded. It is efficient, though brevity comes at the cost of missing operational context.

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?

Although an output schema exists so return-value details need not be in the description, the tool is underspecified for a user trying to call it correctly. Key invocation constraints—parameter optionality, exclusivity, and what a cache status report actually contains—are absent, making this incomplete for reliable tool selection and use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare schema. It adds only the relationship 'docket or accession', but does not explain the expected identifier formats, whether at least one is required, whether they are exclusive, or what each parameter affects in the report.

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 identifies a specific action ('Report') and a specific resource ('what the document store holds for a docket or accession'), which distinguishes it as a cache-status inspection tool among siblings like get_docket and sync_docket. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the purpose is not tautological or vague.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_docket, sync_docket, or list_files. The intended use case (checking cached holdings before fetching or syncing) is only weakly implied, not stated.

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