gemini_cache_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies read-only behavior (stats) but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, mention authentication needs, or rate limits. It adds basic context but lacks full 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 two sentences and a reference to the schema location. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a specific usage example. 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?

Given no parameters, a clear output schema (not shown but noted), and specific debugging context, the description is complete for an agent to understand when and why to invoke this tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything. The description adds no parameter info but doesn't need to; 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 it provides Caffeine stats (hit rate, size, evictions) for specific caches, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like clear_gemini_cache and other unrelated tools.

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?

It explicitly states it is useful for debugging unexpected costs and confirming cache key parity, giving clear context for when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use or alternatives.

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