Polar Cache Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the cache is optional and toggled by environment variables, but says nothing about the shape of the returned status or failure modes.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the configuration detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 status check with an output schema present, the description covers what the tool reports and how the underlying cache is enabled. The only real gap is the undocumented response_format parameter.

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 0% for the single parameter, response_format, and the description never mentions it. The enum values (markdown/json) are largely self-explanatory, but the description does nothing to compensate for the documentation gap.

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 ('Show') and resource ('local SQLite cache status'), making the read-only diagnostic nature clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from similar status siblings like polar_connection_status or polar_capabilities, but the 'cache' qualifier is specific enough to separate it from the data-listing tools.

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 second sentence explains how to enable the cache (POLAR_CACHE=sqlite or POLAR_CACHE=true), which implicitly tells the agent this tool is for checking cache enablement, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus other status tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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