cachly-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves details and a connection string, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and directly communicates the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (retrieving instance details and a connection string), no annotations, no output schema, and 1 parameter with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks information on behavioral aspects and output format, leaving gaps in completeness for effective agent use.

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 'instance_id' documented as 'UUID of the instance (from list_instances)'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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: 'Get details and the Redis connection string for a specific cache instance.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('cache instance'), and what information is retrieved ('details and the Redis connection string'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_connection_string' or 'list_instances', which reduces the score from a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'instance_id' from 'list_instances', implying a prerequisite, but does not specify when to choose this over other tools like 'get_connection_string' or 'cache_stats'. There is no explicit when/when-not or alternative usage context.

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