查看缓存状态

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly frames the operation as '查看' (view), implying a read-only, non-destructive behavior, and discloses what the agent can expect: the current cache keys and their count. It does not mention performance costs, but for a zero-parameter status tool this is not a major omission.

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, efficient sentence that states the action, the resource, and the intended use with no redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter status inspection tool.

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 simple zero-parameter tool, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns (keys and count), frames the operation as read-only, and gives the intended purpose. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently covers the return expectations.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers parameter semantics. The description has nothing to add, and the baseline of 4 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('查看') and a specific resource ('当前缓存的键和数量'), clearly stating what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the similar sibling 'cycle_cache_status', though the general 'cache' wording and the sibling's more specific name help distinguish them.

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 phrase '用于调试和监控' provides implied usage context: use this tool when debugging or monitoring cache state. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over related siblings like 'cache_clear' or 'cycle_cache_status', and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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