peaka_create_cache

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, which aligns with the description's implication that this creates a resource (a cache), though the description does not explicitly state that it mutates data or creates a persistent artifact. The description adds value by explaining the optional schedule behavior and the workflow for projectId, but it does not disclose side effects like whether the cache is created immediately or takes time to populate, or whether it overwrites existing caches. This is partially covered by the operation's nature, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded with the core function, then adds the schedule note and projectId guidance. It could be slightly more structured by separating the projectId instruction into a distinct paragraph, but it is efficient with no filler. The schedule format details (e.g., 'PT6H, P1D') are relevant and earned.

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 that there is no output schema and annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false), the description covers the critical usage context: required parameters, optional schedule behavior, and the projectId discovery workflow. It does not explain what happens after creation (e.g., whether the cache is immediately usable) or error conditions, but for a create operation with a clear input schema, the provided details are sufficient for an agent to call it. The missing output schema does not force the description to explain return values, so completeness is good but with minor gaps around post-creation behavior.

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 coverage is 50%, and the description does add meaningful context for the schedule parameters: it specifies that they use ISO-8601 durations and can be set later, which clarifies the format and optionality. However, it does not elaborate on catalogId, schemaName, tableName, or fullRefreshSchedule beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., required fields and basic structure). The schema already describes the object structure for schedules, so the description's extra value is marginal for those, but it does explain the use of schedules (optional, ISO-8601) beyond the bare schema, so a 3 is fair.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a cache for a table in the Peaka project.' It explains the purpose (improving query performance) and distinguishes itself from siblings like peaka_update_cache by noting schedules can be set later with that tool. The phrase 'Create a cache' is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 explicitly instructs when to call peaka_list_projects first if the projectId is unknown, and to ask the user which project to use. It also clarifies that schedules are optional and can be set later with peaka_update_cache, which clearly differentiates it from peaka_update_cache. While it does not enumerate all alternative tools, it gives direct procedural guidance for a critical prerequisite.

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