cimd_cache_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Inspect' signals a read-only operation, and the return description of 'cache contents with remaining TTL seconds per client_id' adds useful behavioral detail. It does not explicitly state side-effect-free or permission requirements, but the core behavior is sufficiently transparent.

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 concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a clear statement of return values. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool with no parameters and a provided output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, return content, and admin context. It is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 zero parameters, so per the baseline this warrants a 4. The description adds context about the output being per client_id, which is useful even though there are no parameters to explain.

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 the action 'Inspect' and the specific resource 'CIMD metadata cache', and labels it as an admin/management tool. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cimd_clear_cache and cimd_resolve by implying a read-only inspection role.

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 by identifying the tool as an admin/management tool for inspecting cache contents. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the admin/management label plus the contrast with cimd_clear_cache and cimd_resolve reasonably implies appropriate usage.

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