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 effectively describes key traits: the classification method ('text heuristics'), performance ('Overhead: <0.1 ms, no embedding required'), and return values ('Returns one of: cachly:sem:code...'). It covers efficiency and output without contradictions, though it could mention error handling or input constraints.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with three sentences that each add value: the first states the purpose, the second covers performance, and the third explains utility and returns. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently conveys essential information without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (simple classification with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, behavior, and return values, but lacks details on error cases or input validation. It compensates well for the absence of structured output schema, though minor gaps remain.

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, with the parameter 'prompt' documented as 'The text prompt to classify into a semantic namespace.' The description adds no additional parameter details beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but relies on the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Classify a prompt into one of 5 semantic namespaces using text heuristics.' It specifies the verb ('classify'), resource ('prompt'), and outcome ('semantic namespaces'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle caching, learning, or instance management. The description is specific and not 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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'Useful to understand which namespace cachly will use for a given prompt.' It implies usage for prompt classification but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings. The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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