gitmem-cache-status

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

The description lists the output fields (scar count, age, staleness) which gives some behavioral insight into what the tool returns. However, with no annotations, it should explicitly state that the tool is read-only and non-destructive, which is implied but not confirmed. No mention of permissions, rate limits, or side effects.

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 front-loads the tool's purpose and key outputs. It uses parentheses to list details without extra words, making it concise yet informative. Slight improvement could be adding usage guidance, but as is, it is well-structured.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately conveys the tool's function and output. It names three specific output fields (scar count, age, staleness), which is sufficient for a status tool. However, it does not explain domain-specific terms like 'scar', which might be unclear without domain knowledge.

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 covers the only parameter (project) with a clear description, so the description adds no additional meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: showing local search cache status with specific metrics (scar count, age, staleness). The verb 'Show' combined with the resource 'local search cache status' distinguishes it from siblings like 'gitmem-cache-flush' and 'gitmem-cache-health'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as 'gitmem-cache-health' or 'gitmem-cache-flush'. The description does not mention prerequisite conditions, context, or when to avoid using it.

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