get_cache_stats

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description indicates a read-only operation that returns aggregated statistics, implying no destructive behavior. It does not mention rate limits or permissions, but for a read-only stats tool, this is acceptable.

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 concise with two sentences: the first immediately states the purpose and key outputs, and the second adds a brief insight about the tool's value. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 boolean, no output schema), the description covers the main outputs and the insight provided. It could mention that including history gives different data, but the schema covers the parameter. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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 sole parameter 'include_history' is fully described in the schema with a clear explanation. The tool description does not add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 retrieves Blacksmith cache statistics including total size, hit rate, and entries by repository, which distinguishes it from 'get_cache_entries' that likely returns individual entries. The verb 'Get' and the specific resource are explicit.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_cache_entries'. While the purpose implies it's for aggregated stats, no exclusions or context for choosing between siblings are provided.

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