VIPMP cache stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context, such as that the cache is on-disk and returns specific statistics, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core functionality in the first sentence and practical use cases in the second. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or fluff.

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 zero parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. No gaps remain for an agent to make an incorrect decision.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description covers 100% of schema information implicitly. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameters and adds no confusion.

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 the tool returns statistics about the on-disk docs cache, listing specific items like total entries, fresh/stale split, TTL, and cache file path. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vipmp_cache_clear or warm_vipmp_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 description provides explicit use cases: debugging 'why did it return stale content' or 'is the cache being used at all'. While it doesn't explicitly exclude other uses or compare to alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient for an agent to understand when to invoke it.

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