cache_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates the tool reads cache state, implying a non-destructive operation, but doesn't explicitly state it is read-only or safe, nor does it describe any side effects. The description is sparse but not misleading, warranting a middle score.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key information. Every word earns its place; no fluff. It is exactly as long as needed for a parameterless tool.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, likely a simple report), the description is adequate but could add more detail on what the cache affects or why an agent might need this status. It doesn't explain the return format, but with no output schema, a bit more specificity would improve completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description adds context on what is reported (cache contents and last refresh time), giving some meaning. With 0 parameters, baseline is 4, and the description meets it by stating the resource's state.

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 resource ('local cache') and the action ('what is in it and when last refreshed'), which is clear enough. However, it does not differentiate from siblings; none of the sibling names suggest direct overlap with cache inspection, but the description could be more explicit about its role relative to the other 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?

The description implies usage (checking cache status) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives. It doesn't mention the cache's relevance to other tools or suggest when it should be consulted, leaving that to the agent's reasoning.

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