browser_cache

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a state-mutating tool. It does not state what cache scope is affected (tab, session, bridge), whether 'clear' is destructive or reversible, what 'status' returns, or what effect setting a TTL has. Only the parameter surface is disclosed.

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 lines of prose plus an Args block, with the purpose front-loaded before the parameter notes. Slightly arg-block heavy, but no wasted sentences.

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 mutation-capable cache tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description should cover side effects, scope, and result shape. None of that is present, leaving an agent unable to predict the consequences of 'clear' or 'ttl'.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partly does: it documents the three valid action values and clarifies that seconds only applies when action is 'ttl'. However, it omits the default of 'clear' and the accepted range/units for seconds, leaving gaps.

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 (Control) and a specific resource (Kitsune bridge response cache), and enumerates the three action values. That is enough to distinguish it from the dozens of siblings like browser_clear_browsing_data or browser_status, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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 lists the action values but never says when to reach for this tool versus siblings such as browser_clear_browsing_data, browser_reload_extension, or browser_storage, nor any prerequisites. Usage must be inferred entirely from the parameter names.

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