check_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 mentions checking Supabase connection status and local cache existence, which implies a non-destructive diagnostic operation, but it does not explicitly state whether it has side effects (though 'check' implies read-only). It also doesn't describe potential latency or failure modes, which would be useful.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the primary action and resource ('check the current state of the news cache') and efficiently lists additional details (e.g., connection status, age, per-source counts) without any redundant 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 simple nature of the tool (zero parameters, no output schema), the description provides a good overview of what the tool examines and what information it reports. It does not specify the return format or error behavior, but for a cache check tool this level of detail is sufficient for an agent to understand its purpose and likely output.

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, so the description trivially covers all schema requirements. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters, and the description adds useful contextual information about what is being checked without needing to explain any parameter semantics.

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 checks the current state of the news cache and enumerates the exact aspects it reports (connection status, existence, age, per-source item counts). This differentiates it from sibling tools that fetch news content or perform searches.

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 implies its use for diagnosing cache state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The verb 'check' and the subject make the context clear, but no guidance is given about scenarios where one might prefer another tool or prerequisite conditions.

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