pubmed_cache_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It mentions '管理' (management) but does not disclose that actions like 'clear' and 'clean' are destructive, nor does it explain what happens to cached data, whether operations require special permissions, or what the response format looks like.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then mentions cache types. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, no annotations, no output schema), and the description gives a basic understanding of what it does. However, it lacks details about what 'stats' returns, the difference between 'clear' and 'clean', and the side effects of destructive actions. The description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter with a description ('缓存操作') and enum values. The tool description adds no meaningful detail beyond the schema—it only broadly mentions memory and file cache, which maps loosely to the action values. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with a specific verb+resource: '获取缓存统计信息和状态' (get cache statistics and status). It also mentions support for memory and file cache management, which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on search, download, and other PubMed operations.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool's name and description—it is clearly for inspecting or managing the PubMed cache. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or conditions that would trigger its use.

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