jp_lit_list_cache

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'read-only' and 'does not modify cache or session' mostly restate the structured metadata. It adds no further behavioral details such as output shape or edge-case behavior, but the output schema and annotations reduce the burden; this is adequate but not beyond baseline expectations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important fact ('read-only'), then states the tool's purpose, filter dimensions, and alternatives in three sentences. The final safety statement is somewhat redundant with the annotations but reinforces the non-destructive nature without wasting much space.

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 read-only, filterable listing tool, the description covers purpose, scoping, main use case, and sibling alternatives. With 100% schema coverage, a full output schema, and annotations that disclose the safety profile, nothing essential needed to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description reinforces that filtering by tool, session_id, saved date, and source is possible, but adds no genuinely new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a read-only tool that returns a list/aggregation of local cache entries and can be filtered by tool, session_id, saved date, and source. It explicitly names sibling tools (jp_lit_search_cache_index, jp_lit_delete_cache, jp_lit_prune_cache) that cover different operations, so the agent can immediately distinguish this tool from them.

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 states exactly when to use this tool: for inventorying caches to find a cache_key. It also gives explicit alternatives for content search and deletion, telling the agent to use jp_lit_search_cache_index instead for cross-searching saved jp_lit_search contents, and jp_lit_delete_cache or jp_lit_prune_cache for deletion. This is strong routing guidance.

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