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 semantic search behavior, fallback mechanism, and provides a concrete example. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, rate limits, or authentication requirements that might be relevant for a search tool.

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 front-loaded with the core functionality, followed by a helpful example and important behavioral detail about fallback. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient for agent comprehension.

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 search tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about behavior and usage. The main gap is lack of information about return format or result structure, which would be helpful given no output schema exists.

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%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description adds context about the query parameter ('natural language query') and implies threshold usage, but doesn't significantly enhance the schema's information. This meets 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 a specific verb ('semantically search') and resource ('cached context'), distinguishing it from siblings like cache_get (exact key matching) and recall_context (likely different recall mechanism). The example further clarifies the semantic search functionality.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('instead of exact key matching') and provides a clear alternative behavior ('falls back to remember_context keys if no semantic match is found'), giving specific guidance on its use case versus other recall/search tools.

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