cache_list

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context. It does clarify these are job-run cache artifacts fetched by file, but it says nothing about result volume, ordering, or how with_data affects response size — the schema carries that instead.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose first and the sibling hand-off second. Nothing is redundant with the schema or the title, and every clause earns its place.

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?

A read-only listing tool with full schema documentation and no output schema needs mainly to state scope and the read-a-file alternative, both of which are present. The remaining gap is how listing relates to deletion siblings and what a cached file represents across job runs.

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 100%, so both the filter semantics (including the 'global' nuance for service) and with_data are already documented. The description restates the filter axes (service, plugin, job) without adding format or interaction details, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List files that scheduler jobs cached') plus the filter axes, so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It also names the sibling cache_fetch_file as the tool for reading a single file, cleanly separating the two.

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?

Explicitly routes content retrieval to cache_fetch_file ('use cache_fetch_file to read one file'), which is the main ambiguity for a listing tool. It gives no guidance on the other cache siblings (cache_delete_file, cache_delete_bulk) or on when the listing is empty versus erroring, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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