cache

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 mentions the basic behavior (get or set) but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on set (e.g., overwriting). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient, leaving gaps in understanding its operational traits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by usage rules. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 has 3 parameters with low schema coverage (33%), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic usage but misses details on 'ttlSeconds', return values, error conditions, and behavioral aspects like concurrency or persistence, which are critical for a caching tool.

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 33% (only 'key' has a description), and the description adds value by explaining that 'key' is used for both get and set operations and 'value' is needed for set. However, it doesn't cover 'ttlSeconds' at all, and with low schema coverage, the description only partially compensates, leaving one parameter undocumented.

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 as 'Get or set a cached value,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings (add, echo, status), which appear unrelated to caching operations, so differentiation isn't necessary but the purpose remains clear without it.

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 the tool: 'Provide only key to get, provide key and value to set.' This clarifies the conditional usage based on parameters. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives, and the sibling tools seem unrelated, so no explicit exclusions are needed.

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