manage_cache

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only lists actions without disclosing behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., data loss from 'clear'), idempotency, or authorization needs. Agents are left to infer the impact of each action.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and lists the core actions. Every word is functional, and there is no redundancy.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks explanation of the difference between 'clear' and 'cleanup' and does not mention the 'invalidate' action. Behavioral context for what each action entails is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it lists three actions but misses 'invalidate', and provides no additional context for the 'key' parameter. No value added over 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 states it manages MCP resource cache with specific actions (clear, stats, cleanup), which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. However, it omits the 'invalidate' action from the enum, creating a slight inconsistency with the schema. It is distinct from sibling tools, none of which are cache-related.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The description simply states what the tool does without any contextual usage advice.

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