cachly-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies atomic operation via Lua script, conditional deletion based on token matching, and the distributed nature of the lock. This provides important implementation details beyond basic functionality.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second adds crucial implementation details. No wasted words, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the atomic release mechanism and token matching behavior. However, it doesn't describe what happens on success/failure or return values, leaving some gaps in understanding the complete operation.

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 all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning that the key should be 'same as in cache_lock_acquire' and that the token is 'returned by cache_lock_acquire,' providing helpful context but not essential parameter semantics.

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 ('Release a previously acquired distributed lock') and resource ('lock'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cache_lock_acquire. It uses precise technical language that identifies the exact function.

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 provides clear context by mentioning 'previously acquired distributed lock' and referencing cache_lock_acquire, indicating when this tool should be used. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives for lock management.

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