peaka_create_cache

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining that caching stores data locally to improve query performance, and that schedule expressions are optional at creation time. It does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It could be richer on side effects or return behavior, but the provided context is useful.

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 concise and well-structured, with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by an essential clarification about schedules, and a practical workflow note. No wasted words; each sentence contributes useful information.

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?

The description covers key workflow steps (projectId discovery) and schedule semantics, but it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., cache ID or status) or mention how to verify creation success. Given there is no output schema, this is a notable gap. It also omits any prerequisites or failure modes, though the operation is a non-destructive create.

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 description explains ISO-8601 duration formats and examples (PT6H, P1D, P7D, P30D), adding meaning to the schedule parameters. It also clarifies that schedules can be omitted initially and set later. For projectId, it gives process guidance (list projects first). Required params like catalogId, schemaName, and tableName are not explicitly described, relying on their names, but the description compensates for the 50% schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Create a cache for a table in the Peaka project,' which clearly identifies a specific verb, resource, and scope. It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like peaka_update_cache by noting schedule expressions can be set later, and from peaka_create_cache_batch by focusing on a single table.

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 provides concrete when-to-use guidance: it tells the agent to call peaka_list_projects first if the projectId is unknown and to ask the user which project to use. It also points to peaka_update_cache for setting schedule expressions later. However, it does not explicitly contrast with create_cache_batch or mention scenarios where caching is inappropriate.

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