cache_inspect

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the reporting aspects (size, staleness, bloat) but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, whether it has side effects, or how it computes metrics. It is not contradictory, but lacks depth.

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?

Single concise sentence that front-loads the action and object. No redundant wording, every word 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?

Given the tool has zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It lists the key aspects (size, staleness, bloat) and target (DerivedData, module cache). A note about read-only behavior would improve completeness but is not essential for selecting/invoking.

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 schema has zero parameters, and description supplies no additional parameter info, which is acceptable because there are no parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description does not need to compensate for anything.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Report' with clear resource 'DerivedData and module cache' and scope 'for all projects' (size, staleness, bloat). It fully distinguishes from siblings like cache_clean (which cleans) and build_timing_report (which reports timing).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that cache_clean is for cleaning rather than reporting, nor any exclusions. The usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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