cachly-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return behavior (value or null if key doesn't exist) and that it retrieves from a 'running cache instance', but does not cover aspects like error handling, performance, or side effects. It adds basic context but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, operation, and return behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy, making it front-loaded and easy to understand quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic completeness for a simple retrieval tool but lacks details on return format (e.g., JSON parsing expectations), error cases, or cache-specific behaviors. It's adequate for minimal understanding but could be more comprehensive for a tool in a cache management context.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (instance_id and key). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as key format examples or instance_id constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('Get a value'), resource ('from a running cache instance'), and mechanism ('by key'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cache_set, cache_delete, and cache_exists. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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?

The description implies usage context by specifying it retrieves values from a cache, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cache_mget (for multiple keys) or cache_exists (to check existence). It provides clear operational intent but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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