cache_store

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the storage action but does not mention what happens if the URL already exists (overwrite?), error cases, or authorization needs. This leaves significant ambiguity.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and trigger, and the second lists the parameters. No unnecessary words.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides an adequate but minimal explanation. It identifies the tool's role in caching but omits details about idempotency, error handling, or response format, which would be helpful for a complete understanding.

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 low (33%), but the description adds meaning by associating each parameter with its role: 'original url, prompt, and the output text returned by WebFetch.' This helps clarify the purpose of the url and prompt parameters beyond the schema.

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 action ('Store a WebFetch result in the cache'), the resource ('cache'), and the trigger condition ('after a CACHE_MISS'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like cached_fetch, cache_list, and cache_stats by specifying its role in the caching workflow.

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 explicitly specifies when to use the tool (after a CACHE_MISS), providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or offer alternatives (e.g., using cached_fetch for a subsequent lookup).

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