query_cache

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the tool queries local cache (implying read-only, non-destructive), returns potentially stale data, is fast, and has a specific use case for searching/filtering. It doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, but covers the core operational behavior well.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first states the purpose and key limitation, second provides alternative for fresh data, third gives usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, and it's front-loaded with the most critical information (cached data, staleness).

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's complexity (single but nested parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description does an excellent job of providing context. It explains the data source (local cache), performance characteristics (fast but stale), when to use it, and alternatives. The main gap is lack of output format details, but for a query tool with good parameter documentation, this is acceptable.

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 schema already documents the single 'query' parameter and its nested properties thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but it does provide context about what the query operates on (local cache vs. fresh data), which is useful. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Query the LOCAL CACHE of sessions and activities.' It specifies the verb ('query'), resource ('local cache of sessions and activities'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by emphasizing it's for cached data only, not fresh data.

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 guidance on when to use this tool ('Best for searching across multiple sessions or filtering by type/state') and when not to use it ('Returns only previously synced data (fast, but may be stale)'). It also names alternatives ('To ensure fresh data: call jules_sync first, then jules_select'), making it clear how this tool fits into the workflow.

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