get_cached_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that cache operations are traced to Langfuse with hit/miss status, explains that large results are returned as references with previews, and covers pagination and full retrieval behaviors. No contradictions.

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 bullet points and clear sections. It is mostly concise, though there is slight redundancy between the usage list and later details. Overall efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, no annotations, output schema present), the description covers usage, parameters, caching behavior, and tracing. It mentions cross-tool reference with ref_id. It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent.

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 description explains each parameter in the Args section, adding meaning beyond the schema's types and defaults (e.g., ref_id is 'Reference ID to look up', full 'bypasses all preview generation'). This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 'Retrieve a cached result' with a specific verb and resource, and lists concrete use cases (preview, pagination, full value). It distinguishes itself from sibling cache management tools by focusing on retrieval and referencing ref_id from previous calls.

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 guidance on when to use the tool: for previews, pagination through large lists, and full retrieval. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings.

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