query_cached_result

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses important behavioral details: the operation does not re-execute the original query, filtering uses substring and case-insensitive matching, limit defaults to 100, and the return format includes columns, rows, count, and total_count. It does not mention invalid-cache-key failure behavior or explicitly state non-mutating status, but the 'query' framing implies read-only.

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: a one-sentence summary, a usage hint, a compact Args list, and a Returns note. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded. Every line contributes to understanding the tool correctly.

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 seven parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is impressively complete. It covers purpose, prerequisite knowledge, all parameters, and return shape. It could be more complete by addressing what happens when the cache key is invalid or absent, but overall it provides enough context for correct selection and invocation.

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?

Although the input schema has no descriptions, the Args block documents all seven parameters with meaningful semantics: cache_key is tied to a previous query result, sort_by includes an example, filter_val explains substring/case-insensitive matching, and limit/offset have defaults and pagination meanings. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb phrase: 'Re-query a cached tabular result with different sort/filter/pagination.' This clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from related tools like list_cached_results and invalidate_cache by focusing on re-querying existing cached results.

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 explicitly tells the user to 'Use list_cached_results to find available cache keys,' giving direct prepositioning guidance. It also clarifies that the tool avoids re-executing the original query, which frames when it is appropriate to use. It stops short of listing exclusions or comparing to all alternative tools, but the guidance is solid.

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