list_cached_results

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool lists results and returns metadata fields (tool, parameters, row count, age, cache key), and it notes the relationship to query_cached_result. While it doesn't explicitly state 'read-only', the nature of 'listing' and returning metadata strongly implies no mutation. The description adds useful detail beyond the tool name.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the primary purpose, the second specifies the returned fields and cross-references a related tool, and the third explicitly states the return format. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use the output (cache_key) with a sibling tool. No gaps are evident.

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 no parameters, and the schema covers 100% (trivially). The description adds value by explaining what the returned metadata contains and how the cache_key ties into query_cached_result, even though there are no input parameters to clarify. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets it.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('all cached tabular query results'), which precisely defines the tool's function. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like query_cached_result and invalidate_cache by focusing on listing metadata rather than querying or invalidating.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (to see cached results and their metadata) and explicitly points to query_cached_result for re-querying with different sort/filter/pagination options, providing a helpful cross-reference to a sibling tool. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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