Memcached Discovery

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it discloses the external dependency (MEMCACHED_HOST or a configuration endpoint), the network reach into the config endpoint, and crucially that an unreachable endpoint is reported as a finding rather than an error. It does not cover permissions or how findings are surfaced in the response, which the output schema presumably handles.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the compared data source and the finding categories. No filler or repetition, though the sentence is dense enough that a brief structural break between mechanism and findings would aid scanning.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the tool's two-parameter surface is simple and fully documented in the schema. The description covers the mechanism, the external dependency, and the failure-mode semantics. Minor gaps remain around required permissions and whether the audit lists per-node detail, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both `region` (including its AWS_REGION default) and `cache_cluster_id` are fully documented structurally. The description contributes context around MEMCACHED_HOST, which is an environment input rather than a parameter, but says nothing extra about how the two actual parameters map to the comparison. Baseline 3 is 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 names a specific verb and resource: an auto-discovery consistency check that compares `config get cluster` output against AWS DescribeCacheClusters nodes. It goes further by enumerating the exact discrepancy classes it reports (AWS nodes missing from config, stale entries, engine version mismatch). It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the wording 'auto-discovery check' and the list of flagged conditions, which signals a diagnostic/validation use case. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over memcached_stats, memcached_cluster_stats, or aws_cache_clusters, and no exclusions or prerequisites are spelled out.

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