cache_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description correctly reinforces 'Read-only' and 'No side effects.' It adds value by specifying the return format: 'summary text with cached memory count,' which helps the agent set expectations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 that state purpose, usage, and result. Every sentence earns its place, and the key scoping info ('monitoring and debugging') is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

Tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters; it correctly omits them, and the schema confirms no input is required.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'View' on the resource 'cache performance metrics and health status.' Distinguishes from siblings like optimize_cache (which modifies cache) and get_all_memories (which lists memories) by focusing on metrics and health. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use for monitoring and debugging,' giving clear context for when to invoke. Does not name alternatives or explicit exclusions, but the read-only nature and health-check scope make it obvious it's for diagnostics rather than operations.

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