get_cache_statistics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is for 'system diagnostics' and that it 'SAVES: Claude context for strategic decisions' which provides useful behavioral context about its purpose and output usage. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what specific statistics are returned, or any performance characteristics.

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 well-structured with clear sections (main description, WORKFLOW, TIP, SAVES) and each sentence adds value. It's appropriately sized for a diagnostic tool, though the 'SAVES' section could be more specific about what context is saved. No wasted words, but not perfectly front-loaded since the workflow guidance comes after the main purpose.

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 diagnostic tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides reasonable context about purpose and workflow. However, it doesn't explain what specific statistics are returned or what format they come in, which is important for a statistics-gathering tool. The 'SAVES' hint is useful but vague about what exactly gets saved to context.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter requirements. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. The baseline for 0 parameters with high schema coverage is 4, as the description correctly focuses on other aspects rather than parameter documentation.

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 'Get statistics about the current analysis cache' which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('analysis cache'), but it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'health_check' or 'list_functions' which also provide diagnostic information. The purpose is understandable but lacks differentiation from similar 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?

The description includes explicit workflow guidance: 'WORKFLOW: System diagnostics and function discovery' and 'TIP: Start with health_check, use list_functions to explore capabilities.' This provides clear context about when to use this tool (as part of diagnostics) and suggests a sequence with other tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name direct alternatives.

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