rir_cache_stats

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

Annotations cover safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). Description adds valuable behavioral context about TTL caching mechanism and rate limit respect. Includes detailed return value schema. Could mention if calling this affects cache state (e.g., does it trigger cleanup?), but otherwise comprehensive.

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?

Well-structured with purpose front-loaded, followed by value proposition, then detailed returns. The embedded JSON schema in the Returns section is slightly verbose but functionally useful given the context. No wasted sentences.

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 zero parameters and rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent hints), the description is complete. It explains the 'why' (rate limiting), the 'what' (cache stats), and the 'how' (JSON structure). For a simple diagnostic tool, this coverage is sufficient.

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?

Tool has zero input parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4 per evaluation rules. No parameter semantics are needed or provided, which is appropriate for a parameterless statistics retrieval function.

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?

Description opens with specific verb 'View' and clear resource 'in-memory TTL cache'. The second paragraph distinguishes this from sibling RIR query tools by explaining it monitors the cache that 'prevents repeated queries to RIRs', clearly differentiating it from active query tools like rir_query_ip or rir_check_rpki.

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?

Provides clear context on when the cache matters ('respecting rate limits and reducing latency for repeated lookups'), implying this tool is useful for debugging cache behavior or rate limit issues. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives, but the value proposition is clearly stated.

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