rag_cache_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that this returns aggregate counters rather than raw entries, but says nothing about rate limits, cost, or whether the counters are cumulative or since-reset.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the returned metrics listed after. Zero filler and no restatement of the title or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so by naming the four metrics. It stops short of describing the response shape or units, which is a minor gap for a simple stats call.

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 takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and the schema coverage is 100% by definition.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) plus resource (LAZY-RAG cache statistics) and enumerates the exact metrics returned: hits, misses, hit rate, cache size. It is clearly distinct from the sibling rag_cache_clear, but never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, but usage is strongly implied: a zero-argument read of cache performance metrics is self-evidently for diagnosing cache effectiveness. No alternatives are referenced, so this is implied guidance rather than stated guidance.

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