cache_stats_tool

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it returns stats, implying a read operation, but does not confirm safety (no destructive effects) or mention any side effects. The lack of detail leaves uncertainty.

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, clear sentence with no waste. It could add a bit more detail (e.g., 'Returns a JSON object with hit/miss counts and total size') without losing conciseness, but current form is still efficient.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should hint at the return format. It only says 'cache hit/miss statistics and size' without specifying structure, units, or whether the size is in bytes/entries. This is insufficient for an agent to interpret results without further context.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline rule for zero parameters, the description adds no param info but does not need to. Score reflects the baseline.

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 it returns cache statistics and size, with a verb+resource structure. It distinguishes from siblings like clear_cache_tool. However, it could be more specific about what 'size' refers to (e.g., total entries, bytes).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clear_cache_tool or compress_context_tool. The agent is given no context on prerequisites or scenarios.

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