get_cache_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels: it explicitly states the tool is read-only ('never calls Moodle'), never returns cached course/category records, and lists exactly what is reported (memory load state, disk cache validity, etc.). No contradictions and full behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the action and passive constraint; the second lists the output specifics and behavioral guarantees. No wasted words, every sentence adds value.

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 read-only inspector with one enum parameter and no output schema, the description is fully complete: it specifies purpose, scope, constraints, and reported attributes. No gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% with a single enum parameter that already has a clear description ('Cache target to inspect: courses, categories, or all'). The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Inspect') and the resource ('Moodle course and category caches'), and explicitly distinguishes it from mutation tools by adding 'without changing them'. It also lists specific inspection attributes, making the purpose highly specific and distinguishable from siblings like manage_cache.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for inspecting cache state without changes. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name direct alternatives, the nearby sibling manage_cache implies the alternative for performing cache operations. The lack of explicit when-not guidance prevents a 5.

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