Inspect dangling refs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint:true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' Beyond that, it specifies the exact audit categories (dangling refs, unreachable entities, normalization gaps), adding meaningful context beyond the annotation. It does not discuss edge cases or error behavior, but given the annotation coverage, this is a strong but not perfect disclosure.

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 one sentence, concise, and front-loaded with the core action and target. It contains zero wasted words and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and read-only nature. Excellent structure.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has four parameters and no schema descriptions, making the description the primary source of guidance. The description is too sparse: it omits parameter semantics, default behavior, or any usage nuance. It also fails to differentiate from siblings. Overall, it is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of any parameters (cache, rootIds, includeUnreachable, includeNormalizationGaps). The agent has no guidance beyond parameter names, which is insufficient for correct invocation. The description completely fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Audit a serialized Apollo InMemoryCache... for dangling __refs, unreachable entities, and objects Apollo could not normalize.' It uses a specific verb (audit), a well-defined resource (cache.extract() output), and distinct detectable issues that differentiate it from siblings like patch_cache (which modifies) and diagnose_cache_graph (which likely diagnoses broader graph issues). No ambiguity remains.

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 usage (audit a cache.extract() output) and sets clear input context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the sibling tools or provide exclusion criteria. With siblings present, the lack of explicit differentiation means the agent must infer usage context, which is a moderate gap.

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