cutbolt_cache_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful side-effect clarification 'without generating media' and the scoping word 'owned,' but says nothing about error behavior when no cache exists or whether the inspection is expensive. Some added value, but not rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier and the non-media constraint are packed in efficiently and nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does name what is reported (entry identities, logical and physical sizes). This is nearly complete for a read-only inspector; only the absence of any error/empty-cache behavior keeps it from a 5.

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% and the single optional cache_root param is documented as 'Local cache directory used by cache.run.' The description adds no syntax, default, or override semantics beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb (inspect) and resource (owned local cache), plus the concrete attributes surfaced: entry identities and logical/physical sizes. The phrase 'without generating media' distinguishes it from the media-oriented siblings (cutbolt_media_inspect), though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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 only implied: 'inspect' versus the sibling cutbolt_cache_prune suggests read-vs-delete, and 'without generating media' hints at a safe, non-mutating inspection. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer cutbolt_cache_prune, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether a populated cache is required).

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