cache_create

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

The description discloses the two main behaviors: fetching full metadata and saving to disk cache. It also implies the mutating nature via 'Create.' Yet with no annotations, it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting an existing cache by the same name, network dependency, or rate limits, limiting transparency to a mid-range.

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?

Three short sentences, each with a distinct purpose: the tool's action, the mechanism, and the usage recommendation. No filler or redundant details.

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 that the output schema exists, return values need no explanation. The description covers the creation flow, the source of data (query), and the destination (disk cache). It could mention overwrite behavior or resource implications, but for a moderate 3-param tool, it's reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any per-parameter meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the 'search query' concept and 'paper cache' concept. No additional semantics for 'name' or 'limit' are provided.

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 opens with 'Create a paper cache from search query', a specific verb+resource statement. It further explains it 'Fetches full metadata for papers matching query and saves to disk cache', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cache_list or cache_stats, and from search_works which presumably does not create a cache.

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 final sentence, 'Use this to build a reusable paper collection for a research topic,' gives clear guidance on when to employ this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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