get_cache_stats

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is established. The description adds useful behavioral context about what it reports (storage usage, file counts) beyond the annotation, without contradiction.

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 compact (two sentences) with the key purpose front-loaded ('REQUIRED'). The final sentence 'Essential for cache management and monitoring' is slightly redundant but not harmful.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only stats tool with clear annotations, the description adequately provides purpose and usage context. It describes what data is reported (storage space, cached file counts) even without an output schema, making it complete for its simplicity.

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, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description need not explain parameters, making baseline 4 appropriate.

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 is for 'checking media cache status and storage usage' and lists specific metrics (storage space, files analyzed and cached). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cleanup_media_cache (mutation) and search_cached_media (search).

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 says 'REQUIRED' and names concrete user intents ('cache statistics', 'storage space used', 'how many files have been analyzed'). It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the use cases are clear enough for a no-parameter read-only tool.

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