cache

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions TTL and namespaces, but fails to describe important behaviors such as how TTL expiration works, whether delete and clear are destructive and irreversible, whether clear operates per namespace or globally, or what happens to expired keys. These are significant gaps for a tool with mutation operations.

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 a single concise sentence that establishes the core resource and lists all operations without any filler. It is front-loaded and every element contributes to understanding the tool's scope.

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 multi-operation tool with no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what each operation returns (e.g., get returns a value, list returns keys), nor does it clarify important side effects like the destructive nature of delete/clear or TTL enforcement with the default namespace. This undercuts the agent's ability to predict behavior correctly.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, including descriptions for operation, key, value, namespace, and ttl_seconds. The description adds no additional parameter semantics; it merely repeats TTL and namespaces and lists operations that are already defined in the enum. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the resource as a key-value cache with TTL and namespaces, and enumerates the supported operations (set, get, delete, list, clear). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like database-query or file_read, though it lacks a single verb+resource construction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for temporary data, that database-query might be preferred for persistent structured data, or any exclusions. There is no 'when to use' or 'prefer X instead' statement.

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