gemini_query_cache_toolAsk questions about content stored in a Gemini cache to retrieve specific answers without reprocessing source material.
Query content in a cache.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| question | Yes | Question to ask about the cached content. | |
| cache_name | Yes | The cache name from gemini_create_cache. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds nothing further — no note on latency, cache lifetime, cost savings versus a plain query, or failure behavior when the cache name is invalid. For a read tool whose safety is already annotated, this is a missed opportunity to add real context.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is structurally clean. But at five words it is under-specified rather than truly concise — there is room for essential context without bloat.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the schema covers both params. What is missing is the operational context: that this depends on a cache created by gemini_create_cache_tool, how it relates to gemini_query_tool, and when the cached path is preferable.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema (including the pointer to gemini_create_cache). The description adds no format, syntax, or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 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 states a verb ('Query') and a resource ('content in a cache'), which is more specific than a bare name restatement. However, it does not distinguish itself from the adjacent sibling gemini_query_tool or explain what 'querying a cache' means relative to a normal query, leaving the agent to infer the difference.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that a cache must first exist), and no mention of the sibling alternative gemini_query_tool. The only lifecycle hint lives in the schema property text, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.