get_cache_status

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

No annotation contradiction: readOnlyHint=true is consistent with 'Show...'. The description adds context beyond the annotation by specifying the exact return format, including the db_path to the SQLite file. This clarifies the tool's local, read-only nature and gives insight into what the output contains.

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 succinct and well-structured: a single purpose sentence followed by a clear return-value section. Every word is necessary, and the format is easily scannable for an AI agent.

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 zero-parameter, read-only cache inspection tool, the description fully covers purpose and output. The output schema exists, but the description adds human-readable detail about keys and meaning. There is no missing information that would impede tool selection or invocation.

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 has zero parameters, so no parameter explanation is needed. According to the rubric, 0 parameters baseline is 4. The description provides no parameter details because there are none, which is appropriate and complete.

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 explicitly states 'Show what data is currently stored in the local cache,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling data-retrieval tools by focusing on cache metadata rather than actual data pulls. The return-value breakdown further reinforces the purpose.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to inspect cache contents. The return structure clarifies that it provides counts and date ranges, not actual records, so it is clearly a diagnostic tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, which would warrant a 5.

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