sbox_cache_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies this is a read-only health-check operation. There are no mutation concerns, and the tool takes zero parameters, so the behavioral surface is minimal. The description is adequate but doesn't detail what the status output looks like or what specific states it can report.

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 sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose; the second gives the usage context. This is exemplary conciseness—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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly states what is exposed (cache and search index status) and when to use it. A minor gap is that it doesn't describe what the status output will contain or how to interpret it, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is well-proportioned.

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, so the baseline is 4 as specified. There's nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning since the input schema is an empty object. The description's mention of what information this tool exposes (cache and search index status) compensates for any ambiguity about what the status represents.

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 shows the status of the documentation cache and search index, with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('documentation cache and search index'). It's distinct from sibling tools like sbox_search_docs which search documentation, and sbox_list_doc_categories which lists categories.

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 provides clear context: 'Use this to verify the MCP server is running and has indexed documentation.' This tells the agent when to invoke it (health-check scenario). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but given the unique purpose among siblings, the guidance is adequate.

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