get_cached_result

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does so thoroughly: it mentions Langfuse tracing with hit/miss status, that large results come back as references with previews, how pagination works, and that ref_id comes from previous tool calls. These are meaningful behaviors beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with a lead sentence, bulleted use cases, an args section, returns, and bolded notes. It is slightly repetitive between the Returns paragraph and the Caching/Pagination sections, but the redundancy is minimal and the structure supports scanning.

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?

The description covers the essential invocation context: when to use it, what each parameter does, caching behavior, pagination, and the source of ref_id. Given the output schema exists and the operation is a read-style cached lookup, this is nearly complete, though it could add more detail about defaults or missing-key behavior.

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%, but the description compensates by documenting all four parameters: ref_id, page (1-indexed), page_size, and max_size (overrides defaults). The definitions are concise and actionable, though max_size's default behavior could be more precise.

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 opens with a clear and specific statement: 'Retrieve a cached result, optionally with pagination.' It also enumerates the concrete use cases (preview, paginate large lists, access full value), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling admin/cache-stat tools.

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 'Use this to' bullets describe when to call the tool and how it should be used, including previewing and paginating. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to select it in the right context.

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