get_cache_stats

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'checking' and 'storage usage' language aligns without contradiction. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that—no rate limits, return format, or side-effect details—but for a read-only stats tool this is acceptable.

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 somewhat redundant, with 'REQUIRED' and 'Essential' reinforcing the same point, and the first two sentences partially overlap. It could be trimmed to a single sentence while preserving clarity.

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 simple parameterless read-only tool, the description covers purpose, usage triggers, and scope (images, videos, analyzed counts). The absence of an output schema is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the annotations.

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 there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description provides value by enumerating what statistics are covered, meeting the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 the tool's function: checking media cache status and storage usage, covering cache statistics and storage space for images/videos. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_cached_media and cleanup_media_cache by focusing on statistics rather than content search or deletion.

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 provides explicit use cases: when users ask about cache statistics, storage space, or analyzed/cached file counts. It frames the tool as REQUIRED for checking media cache status, giving clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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