get_cache_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the meaning of each returned state (`complete`, `missing_frames`, `writing`, `hint`) and warns against shell-loop polling. It does not explicitly state read-only/no side effects, but the status semantics and context make the behavior clear enough.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the operation, and the following sentences explain the polling contract and return states. Every sentence contributes either field semantics or usage guidance with no filler.

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 one-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: when to poll, what each returned field means, and how to integrate polling without blocking. It lacks explicit error behavior or path-format examples, but that is a minor gap for this simple getter.

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 description repeats `node_path: Path to the cache node`, which adds only the 'cache' qualifier over the schema's 'Node Path' title. It includes `ctx` as an MCP context argument but gives no path format or examples, so it only minimally compensates for the 0% schema description 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 directly states the tool reports 'frames on disk for a cache node' against the range it is set to write, which is a specific resource and metric. It also identifies itself as the polling counterpart to write_cache, distinguishing it from sibling cache and cook-status tools.

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 opens with 'This is what to poll after a background write_cache,' giving a concrete trigger condition. It also provides a clear when-not: 'Never wait for a cache with a shell loop; call this between other work.'

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