get_cache_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys only the rough content of the report and says nothing about whether the call is read-only, what happens for an invalid or non-cache node_path, or what the response structure looks like.

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?

It is short and contains no filler, but it is an incomplete sentence fragment rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose. Brevity here comes at the cost of clarity rather than from efficiency.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum define node_path and state what the status report contains. It only vaguely gestures at the comparison being made, leaving the agent unable to call it confidently.

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% for the single required parameter node_path, so the description must compensate and does not: it never explains what a 'cache node' path is, what form it takes, or whether it refers to a file path, Houdini node path, or cache identifier.

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 is a noun phrase fragment ('Frames on disk for a cache node, against the range it is set to write') that describes the reported data rather than stating a verb and resource. It hints at the domain (cache node, disk frames vs. configured range) and distinguishes it from write_cache/clear_cache, but never says the tool retrieves status.

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 guidance, no preconditions, and no reference to the obvious alternatives (write_cache, clear_cache, get_cook_status). At best the mention of disk frames versus a configured write range implies a diagnostic/inspection scenario, which the agent must infer.

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