manage_cache

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes operations like 'clear' and 'cleanup' but does not disclose whether these are destructive, what side effects occur, or any required permissions. The 'invalidate' action is also omitted.

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 a single sentence with 6 words, very concise and front-loaded. However, it lacks detail that would be valuable, but it is not verbose.

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?

For a cache management tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values for 'stats', what 'cleanup' entails, or how to use 'invalidate'. The agent lacks information to use the tool effectively.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description lists three actions (clear, stats, cleanup) but the schema includes four, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. 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?

The description states it manages MCP resource cache and lists clear, stats, cleanup, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on analysis, memory, etc. However, it omits the 'invalidate' action present in the schema, slightly reducing completeness.

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. The description simply states what it does, without any context on prerequisites, scenarios, or comparison to other cache-related tools (none exist in siblings).

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