Gestionar Cache Ce3X

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the load and does so well: it distinguishes the read-only action ('estadisticas') from the two mutating ones ('purgar_expiradas', 'vaciar_todo') and names the affected store. It stops short of warning that 'vaciar_todo' discards all cached entries (including unexpired ones) and forces slow re-fetching, and it sits in tension with destructiveHint=false.

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?

Well front-loaded and organized under labeled headings ('Cuándo usar', 'Comportamiento y efectos secundarios'), which makes it scannable. There is mild redundancy: the opening sentence and 'Operación de mantenimiento del sistema de caché local' restate the same idea, and the Read-Only note partly duplicates what the action list already conveys.

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 two-parameter maintenance tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation) and full schema coverage, the description supplies everything needed: what is managed, the underlying store, TTLs, when to use it, and which actions mutate. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it 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 schema already documents both parameters, their defaults and allowed values (baseline 3). The description adds meaning beyond the plain enumeration by assigning semantics to each 'accion' value (read-only vs. purge), though it says nothing about the 'categoria' selector, which is left entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Gestiona el subsistema de caché persistente SQLite local') and pins down the concrete scope: the ~/.ce3x_mcp/cache.db file, Catastro entries (TTL 30 días) and PVGIS entries (TTL 90 días). No sibling tool touches cache management, so there is little risk of confusion, but the description never explicitly positions itself against alternatives, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 explicit 'Cuándo usar' block gives two concrete triggers: inspecting occupied space / hit-miss rate, and invalidating old entries to force a fresh telematic reload. It gives clear context for use but names no exclusions or alternative tools (e.g. re-querying via consultar_catastro instead of purging), so no 5.

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