Cache Status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Check' suggests a read-only operation, it doesn't explicitly state whether this requires specific permissions, what format the status information returns, whether it's real-time or cached data, or any rate limits. For a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the essential purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple diagnostic tool and front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides adequate coverage of what the tool does. However, as a diagnostic tool with potential complexity in what 'status' means and how it's presented, the description could benefit from clarifying the return format or what specific status information is provided. It meets minimum viability but leaves questions about output format.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for parameterless tools where the schema fully documents the empty parameter set.

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 verb ('Check') and resource ('status of Magento 2 cache types'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like cache-clean, cache-disable, cache-enable, cache-flush, and cache-view by focusing on status checking rather than modification operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with cache-view which might also provide status information, preventing a perfect score.

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 through the verb 'Check' - suggesting this is for diagnostic or monitoring purposes rather than modification. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cache-view or sys-info, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is implied but not articulated.

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