list_caches

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool discovers cache locations and usage, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, permissions, or scope (e.g., whether it scans all or specific package managers).

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 a single sentence that conveys the core purpose concisely. However, it lacks detail on parameters and behavior, so it is not optimally informative for the size.

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 two optional parameters and an output schema, the description omits guidance on parameter usage and filtering capabilities. The output is covered by the schema, but the description fails to mention that it can target specific package managers or a custom path, making it incomplete for informed usage.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the two optional parameters ('path' and 'targets'). The enum for 'targets' gives some hint, but no textual meaning is provided, leaving agents to guess the purpose and valid usage of these parameters.

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 discovers local package manager cache locations and disk usage, which matches the 'list' name. It distinguishes from siblings 'plan_cleanup' and 'execute_cleanup' by focusing on inspection rather than planning or execution.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the sibling names ('plan_cleanup', 'execute_cleanup') imply it is a precursor for cleanup tasks, giving indirect context. A clear when-to-use statement is missing.

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