list_caches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it recursively searches, what happens with invalid root paths, or what the return format looks like. The description is minimal and leaves behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is minimal but not bloated. It earns its place, though it could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. It doesn't explain what 'cache-type nodes' means, how results are returned, or how this relates to other cache tools like get_cache_status, clear_cache, or write_cache. An agent would need to infer too much.

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 must compensate. It mentions root_path in the Args section but only restates the schema's 'Root path to search from' without adding format, default behavior, or examples. The default '/' is in the schema but not explained in the description.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all cache-type nodes under a root path'), which clearly identifies the operation. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like list_lights or list_children, but the cache-type qualifier provides enough specificity.

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 tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that list_children or find_nodes might be more appropriate for general node listing, nor does it explain the context for cache-type nodes. The usage context is only implied by the name and description.

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