qobrix_cache_stats

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that stats are process-local and reset on restart, and it describes what the tool reports. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, but 'Inspect' implies this, and no side effects are mentioned. The process-local caveat is valuable behavioral context.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states what it does, second gives usage guidance, third notes a critical limitation. No filler, front-loaded with the action and resource, and 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, no-output-schema diagnostic tool, the description is nearly complete. It names all key metrics and gives a caveat about process-local resets. It could theoretically specify the exact return shape, but the listed metrics suffice for an agent to know what to expect.

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 schema coverage is complete. The description adds semantics by detailing exactly which stats are returned, effectively describing the output fields. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets that by providing meaningful return-value context.

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 opens with 'Inspect the response cache' and enumerates specific metrics (hits/misses, in-memory size, in-flight coalesced requests, TTL, Redis tier status). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools, especially qobrix_cache_clear, by focusing on inspection rather than mutation.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: 'to verify the cache is paying off' and 'to diagnose why a query feels slow', giving concrete scenarios (high hits, low misses, cold cache, Redis degraded). It does not name alternatives because none exist for stats, but the usage context is clear.

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