cache_org_stats

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the scanning pattern ('keys under org:{org_id}:sem:*'), the Cachly API aggregation, and states 'Zero-config: no API changes required'. It implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness. Still, behavioral coverage is good.

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 4-5 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value. Slightly verbose but not wasteful; could be tightened but still effective.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description lists return elements (shared entries count, hit metrics, savings, per-instance breakdown). It covers the tool's purpose and data sufficiently for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds context for org_id by showing the key pattern, but provides no extra detail for instance_id. Given high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('shared cache statistics for an org namespace'), and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like cache_stats by focusing on org-level shared cache. The scope is unambiguous.

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?

Explicit use cases are provided: 'Use this to verify org-sharing is working and to monitor cross-instance cache utilization.' While no 'when not to' or alternative tools are mentioned, the context is clear enough for selection among siblings.

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