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. It discloses key behaviors: it associates changes with knowledge, returns relevant lessons, and records changes in session history. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'lessons' entail. The description adds value but is incomplete for behavioral 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with three sentences that each earn their place: stating the purpose, specifying inputs, and providing usage context. There is zero waste, 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the tool's purpose, usage, and expected outcomes ('returns lessons', 'records file changes'). However, it lacks details on output format, error cases, or side effects, leaving some gaps for a tool with 4 parameters and mutation behavior.

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. The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning `git diff --stat` for 'changed_files' and implying 'commit_msg' usage, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('associate', 'record', 'track') and resources ('recent file changes', 'brain knowledge', 'session history'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on syncing file changes with knowledge tracking, unlike other tools that handle caching, searching, or session management.

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 ('Call this after commits') and provides context ('so the brain tracks what changed and why'). It distinguishes from alternatives by specifying input from `git diff --stat`, guiding users away from other tools for different purposes like caching or searching.

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