Gemini List Caches Tool

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a non-mutating operation, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds the useful scoping detail that only 'active' caches are returned, but says nothing about pagination, return volume, or whether caches expire — gaps an agent enumerating caches might care about.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the operation is front-loaded. It is minimal rather than padded, though the extreme brevity leaves room that could have been spent on usage routing.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is not required, and there are no parameters to document, so the description covers most of what is needed. The missing piece is context on how listing relates to the other cache lifecycle tools.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents the (empty) input contract.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list content caches) and qualifies the scope with 'active', so an agent knows this is a read/list operation rather than a query or mutation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling cache tools (create/query/delete), but the name and verb make the distinction inferable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus gemini_query_cache_tool or gemini_create_cache_tool, nor any note about needing to list before querying. The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb.

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