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. It discloses that the tool stores lessons for team-wide benefit and requires author attribution, which is useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if storage fails. For a write operation with no annotations, more behavioral traits would be helpful.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by comparative and attribution details. It uses two concise sentences with no wasted words, efficiently conveying key 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 complexity (10 parameters, write operation) and no annotations or output schema, the description does well by explaining the tool's purpose, usage, and integration with 'team_recall.' However, it could improve by addressing potential errors, storage limits, or confirmation of success, which are gaps for a tool with significant input requirements.

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 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only implying that 'author' is required for attribution and linking to 'team_recall' output. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without significant added value.

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: 'Store a lesson in a shared team brain so all team members benefit.' It specifies the verb ('store'), resource ('lesson'), and context ('shared team brain'), and distinguishes it from sibling 'learn_from_attempts' by noting the author requirement. This is specific and differentiates from alternatives.

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 usage guidance: it compares to 'learn_from_attempts' and states 'REQUIRES an author name for attribution,' indicating when to use this tool versus alternatives. It also mentions how the stored lesson appears in 'team_recall,' clarifying the outcome and integration with other tools.

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