fandom_cache_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Show' implies a read-only inspection, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive, whether it has side effects, or what the 'refresh command' output entails. For a zero-parameter status tool the risk is low, but the disclosure is only adequate.

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?

Two short sentences. The primary action is front-loaded, and the usage context follows immediately without any filler.

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?

The description covers what the tool does and when to call it, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The only minor gap is that 'refresh command' is not elaborated, but for a simple status tool this is not a serious omission.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. The baseline score of 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('local Roblox BedWars Fandom cache status and refresh command'), making the tool identifiable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_fandom_cache or read_fandom_page, but the status-oriented purpose is clear.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use rule: 'Use before Fandom searches to confirm whether gameplay/wiki data has been collected.' No when-not or alternative tool is named, but the context is sufficient for correct selection in most cases.

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