list_cached_entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the tool lists cached entries. It does not disclose whether it is read-only, if pagination is supported, or what happens when the cache is empty. Behavioral traits beyond the obvious are absent.

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 extremely concise (8 words) and front-loaded with the key action and resource. However, it lacks any additional structure (e.g., parameter hints, examples) that could improve scannability. It is efficient but minimal.

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 the tool has 3 optional parameters, an output schema, and many siblings, the description provides insufficient context. It omits information about filtering, pagination, and how it relates to other cache-related tools. The description is not complete for effective tool selection.

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 adds no information about the three parameters (journal, limit, offset). It does not explain that journal filters by journal, or that limit/offset enable pagination. The description fails to compensate for the lack of 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 explicitly states it lists entries from the local SQLite cache, which clearly differentiates it from siblings like 'list_entries' (which likely lists primary entries) and 'get_cached_entry' (singular). The verb 'list' and resource 'entries already saved' are specific and 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_cached_entries' or 'cache_recent_entries'. The description does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without decision support.

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