cache_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Stav' and the enumerated read-only metrics imply a safe inspection operation, but the description never states that it is non-destructive, requires no special auth, or whether it triggers any cache work. It does add concrete value by naming the four categories of information returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core purpose ('Stav lokální cache') leads and the returned metrics follow as a compact list. Slightly list-heavy but every element earns its place.

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 zero-parameter inspection tool with an output schema already present, the description need not explain return formatting. It is complete enough for correct invocation, with the only gap being the absence of any usage or safety 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, and there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve.

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 resource and scope: 'Stav lokální cache' (state of the local cache) followed by the concrete contents it reports (decision count, publication date range, most frequent courts, database location). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling cache tools like cache_fill or cache_search, though it never names them 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The diagnostic/inspection intent is only implied by the word 'stats'; an agent must infer that this is for checking cache health rather than for retrieving decisions, and no alternative tool is referenced.

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