jp_lit_list_cache

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

The description explicitly states 'read-only' and 'cache や session は変更しない' (does not modify cache or session), which covers the key behavioral trait. With no annotations provided, this is adequate but could be more detailed about potential side effects or performance (e.g., no pagination details).

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, with 4 sentences covering purpose, filtering, use case, alternatives, and safety. It is front-loaded with 'read-only' and avoids redundancy. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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?

Given the 7 optional parameters, rich schema, and existence of output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's role as a cache inventory listing tool. It covers related sibling tools and clarifies the tool's non-modifying nature, making it complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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?

All 7 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage) with clear types, formats, and constraints. The tool description adds a high-level summary of filtering dimensions ('tool、session_id、保存日、source で絞り込める') but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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: 'read-only' listing/aggregation of local cache with filtering by tool, session_id, saved date, and source. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like jp_lit_search_cache_index (for word search inside cache) and jp_lit_delete_cache/jp_lit_prune_cache (for deletion).

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 provides explicit when-to-use: 'cache_key を探す棚卸しに使う' (inventory to find cache_key). It also specifies when not to use and directs to alternative tools: for cross-searching saved content use jp_lit_search_cache_index, for deletion use jp_lit_delete_cache or jp_lit_prune_cache.

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