cache_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the behavioral trait of returning minimal data to reduce context usage, which informs the agent about output size. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'query' implies non-mutating. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, no waste. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the benefit and gives action. Perfectly 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?

For a query tool with 9 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, behavioral trait (minimal data), and usage instruction. It lacks explicit alternative comparison, but the core is present. A 4 is fair.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by instructing 'Specify only fields needed,' which directly relates to the `fields` parameter and explains its purpose. This elevates the score to 4.

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 'Query cached papers with field filtering,' providing a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling cache tools by emphasizing field filtering and minimal data return.

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 says 'Specify only fields needed,' giving clear guidance on how to use the tool to minimize context usage. It implies when to use this tool (when needing selective cached paper data) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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