cache_design_with_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It describes the action (storing and attaching), implying a write operation, but does not disclose details such as whether existing cache entries are overwritten, authentication requirements, side effects, or return values. The description provides basic transparency but leaves gaps.

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 concise, beginning with a one-line summary followed by a short explanatory paragraph and a properly formatted argument list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary content. It could be slightly more condensed but remains well-structured and front-loaded.

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 6-parameter complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality but does not fully equip an agent. It lacks return value details, overwrite behavior, and retrieval instructions. While it explains what is stored, it omits the outcome of the operation and post-call state, limiting completeness.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, so the description must compensate. It lists all 6 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'file_path: Path to the design file'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's titles. However, it lacks details like path format, file existence requirements, or constraints on provider values. The explanations are adequate but minimal.

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: 'Cache a design file alongside its parametric source code.' It specifies the verb 'Cache', the resource 'design file' and 'parametric source code', and explains that it stores the STL/3MF file and attaches the OpenSCAD source and prompt. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'cache_design' which likely cache only the file.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'cache_design' or 'cache_model'. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or when to avoid using it. The only implicit differentiation is the inclusion of source code, but no explicit 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' instructions.

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