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 the tool's behavior: saving context for later recall, caching to avoid re-computation, and implies persistence (though not explicitly stating durability or failure modes). It adds context like use cases and the recall mechanism, but lacks details on error handling or performance limits.

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, starting with the core purpose, followed by specific use cases, and ending with a practical example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 complexity of a caching tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and examples, but lacks details on return values or error behavior. With no annotations, it compensates well but could improve by addressing potential failures or confirmation of success.

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 documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only implying key and content usage in the example. It does not explain parameter interactions or provide additional meaning, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 with specific verbs ('save context information to the cache') and resources ('codebase overviews, file summaries, project structure, frequently-accessed data, or thinking results'). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning recall_context as a complementary tool, making the purpose distinct and actionable.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Perfect for caching: codebase overviews, file summaries...') and includes a concrete example with remember_context and recall_context. It differentiates from alternatives by suggesting this tool for avoiding re-computation, which is not covered by generic cache tools like cache_set in the sibling list.

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