processon_cache_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It uses 'Show' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or mention any permissions or limitations. Given the simplicity, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly communicates the tool's purpose without any fluff. It earns its place and is appropriately concise.

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 tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema, so the description covers the essential purpose. It could optionally mention that it is read-only, but 'Show' sufficiently implies this. Minor gap in explicit usage context, but overall complete.

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 description adds no parameter details. Per rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools; the schema already trivially covers everything.

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 a specific action (show) and resource (cache backend info and token storage status). It distinguishes itself from siblings like processon_cache_clear (clearing vs. info) and chart-generation tools, so an agent can select it appropriately.

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 its use (for inspecting cache state) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The sibling name processon_cache_clear offers indirect contrast, but no explicit guidance is given.

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