predictive_cache_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('get status') but does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior, mention required permissions, or describe rate limits. The behavioral clarity is adequate but incomplete.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence defines the purpose, the second adds specific details. Every word contributes.

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 simple status tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description fully captures the purpose and returned information. No additional details needed.

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 has zero parameters, so the description adds value by explaining what the tool returns. Baseline for no parameters is 4.

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 tool retrieves status of the predictive hot cache system, listing specific details like enabled state, configuration, and learned pattern statistics. It distinctly differs from siblings like 'hot_cache_status' and 'metrics_status' by focusing on predictive caching.

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 implies use for checking predictive caching state but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., 'hot_cache_status' or 'metrics_status'). No contraindications or preferred contexts are given.

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