list_caches

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing but says nothing about return format, pagination, whether results are recursive, or how 'cache-type nodes' are identified. This is a notable gap for a tool with zero structured behavioral hints.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and is efficient. The Args block including the boilerplate 'ctx: MCP context' is minor filler but standard for this tool family.

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 simple single-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate but leaves the return shape and the meaning of 'cache-type node' unexplained, which an agent may need to interpret results correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description's note that root_path is the path to search from is the only semantic detail available, adding a little value. However, it doesn't clarify format, recursion depth, or default behavior beyond what the schema's default '/' implies.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (cache-type nodes) scoped to a root path. Clear enough to act on, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_cache_status, clear_cache, or write_cache that operate on the same caching domain.

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 on when to use this versus get_cache_status or the other cache-related siblings, and no prerequisites or context. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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