gemini_listCaches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination support and the return format (list of cache metadata objects with potential next page token), which are useful behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, which are important for a list operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by concise details on pagination and return values in two additional sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic operation, pagination, and return format adequately. However, it lacks details on authentication, error cases, or how to interpret the cache metadata objects, which could be helpful given the tool's complexity and lack of structured output schema.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the two parameters (pageSize and pageToken). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Lists') and resource ('cached content resources available for the project'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like gemini_listFiles, which lists files rather than caches, leaving room for slight ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gemini_getCache (for a specific cache) or gemini_listFiles (for listing files). The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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