bmc_cache_analysis

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It describes configuring counters, running target briefly, and reporting results. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. Adds some value beyond empty schema but not fully transparent.

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?

Extremely concise: two short paragraphs plus structured Args and Returns. Front-loaded with primary action. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given 2 parameters, no annotations, and presence of output schema, the description covers core functionality, parameters, and return value. Lacks prerequisites or state requirements but is otherwise complete for a cache analysis tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so description fully compensates with explicit Args section explaining each parameter: function (default current execution point) and run_duration_ms (default 1000 ms). Adds significant meaning beyond names and types.

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?

Description clearly states 'Run a quick cache performance analysis' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like bmc_configure and bmc_read by focusing on cache hit/miss ratio analysis.

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?

Provides clear context ('Useful for identifying cache bottlenecks') but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives to sibling tools. Implies usage but does not offer exclusions.

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