cache_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds value by enumerating the returned data: 'cache hit rate, entry count, and law name resolver stats.' No contradiction with annotations; it supplements them with behavioral detail.

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 short and front-loaded, but the final 'Returns:' block redundantly restates what was already mentioned in the first paragraph. Minor waste, but overall efficient and well-structured.

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?

This is a simple, zero-parameter, read-only statistics tool. The description adequately explains what it returns and its purpose, and annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing significant is missing given the tool's low complexity.

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, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 'Show cache and resolver statistics' with a specific verb and resource, and it uniquely distinguishes this tool from all sibling tools that are search/service related. The Korean translation adds clarity for localized users.

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 clear context with 'Useful for monitoring server performance,' indicating an appropriate use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though no siblings serve a similar purpose.

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