Get Cache Warming Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint as true. The description reinforces that it's read-only and safe, and adds value by detailing the return fields (e.g., is_warming, progress_percent) and providing an example. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with a clear lead sentence, a bulleted list of return fields, and an example. It is not overly long, though the emoji and detailed list could be slightly trimmed. The information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 tool with no parameters and existing annotations, the description fully covers the behavior and return format. It lists all expected fields in the response, provides context on when each field is populated (e.g., started_at when active), and includes a usage example. No gaps remain.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by documenting the full return dictionary with field descriptions and an example, which helps the agent understand the output without needing an explicit output schema.

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 'Get cache warming status and progress', specifying the verb (get) and resource (cache warming status). It includes a read-only badge, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like cache_get_stats or cache_task_get_status, which could also provide related status info.

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 safe unsupervised use ('read-only, safe for unsupervised use') which suggests it can be called freely, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons to siblings are provided.

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