cache_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns cache stats and is for demos, but doesn't disclose key behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, its performance characteristics (e.g., latency), authentication needs, rate limits, or what specific stats are included (e.g., hit rates, size). The mention of 'shows how much we saved' adds some context about purpose, but lacks operational details.

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 very concise with a single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and context: 'Return cdmx-mcp cache stats (for demos — shows how much we saved).' It's front-loaded with the core action and includes a brief parenthetical for additional context, with zero wasted words. Every part of the 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?

Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is minimally complete. However, as a tool with no annotations, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, performance) that would be helpful for an agent. The description covers purpose and implied usage but doesn't fully address operational aspects, making it adequate but with gaps.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter information beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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's purpose: 'Return cdmx-mcp cache stats' with the specific verb 'return' and resource 'cache stats'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'for demos — shows how much we saved', which hints at a monitoring/evaluation function rather than data retrieval or analysis like other tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'describe_dataset' might also provide metadata).

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 usage context with 'for demos — shows how much we saved', suggesting this tool is for demonstration or evaluation purposes rather than operational use. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vs. 'describe_dataset' for general metadata or 'list_datasets' for inventory), nor does it specify exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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