delimit_toolcard_cache

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It reveals that the tool modifies the cache (stores schemas, sends diffs) and mentions 'Pro', but does not disclose actions like 'clear' that could be destructive, nor required permissions or session scope.

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 sentences that front-load the core purpose and then provide context. No unnecessary words; every sentence contributes 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?

The description explains the motivation and high-level behavior, but omits details about the specific actions available (e.g., register, delta, clear), the fact that it is Pro-only, and output schema expectations. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema has 100% coverage on all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further detail about parameter usage, such as formatting of tool_schemas or valid action values.

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 tool manages a tool schema cache to reduce token waste, explaining the problem (MCP servers dump full definitions) and the solution (stores schemas, sends diffs). It is unique among siblings, as no other tools mention cache management.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. It only implies usage for reducing token waste but lacks concrete context for decision-making.

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