cache_design

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 'caches for faster access and version tracking' but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it overwrites existing caches, requires authentication, has storage limits, or if version tracking is automatic. The description is too brief to provide meaningful 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 very concise (two sentences plus parameter list) but lacks structure. It front-loads the purpose, which is good, but the parameter descriptions are in a list format inside a docstring, which is acceptable. However, it could be improved by including a brief example or clarifying the output. It earns its place but barely.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens after caching (e.g., return value, side effects like file storage location), whether the operation is reversible, or any errors that might occur. For a tool with moderate complexity, more detail is needed.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists all three parameters with basic explanations: 'Path to the design file to cache', 'Human-readable label for the cached design', 'Intended material for this design'. These add meaning beyond the schema's titles, but are still minimal. For example, 'label' and 'material' could benefit from constraints or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the descriptions are present but not detailed.

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: caching a 3D design file for faster access and version tracking. It uses a specific verb ('Cache') and resource ('3D design file'), and the mention of 'faster access and version tracking' differentiates it from general caching utilities. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from similar tools like 'cache_design_with_source' or 'cache_model', but the context helps.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cache_model or cache_design_with_source). It also lacks any 'when not to use' or prerequisites. The tool appears to be for storing a design for faster access, but no context is given about when caching is appropriate or when to use other caching tools.

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