get_cached_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses the tool is a read operation from cache, non-destructive, and saves API quota. However, it does not specify behavior on cache miss (e.g., returns null or error), nor does it mention session dependency or any side effects. The description is adequate but not fully transparent.

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: two short sentences plus a parameter and return note. It front-loads the primary action and provides clear documentation without 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?

For a simple cache lookup tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description is mostly complete. It explains the benefit and usage context. It lacks explicit mention of cache miss behavior, but given the output schema likely defines the return type, this is a minor gap.

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 single parameter 'pmid' has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds meaning by stating 'pmid: PubMed ID', clarifying the parameter's purpose beyond the schema type. Though brief, it compensates for the schema gap.

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 '從 session 快取取得文章詳情' (get article details from session cache) and contrasts with fetch_article_details, defining the specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by mentioning it is faster and does not consume NCBI API quota.

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 states when to use this tool: when you want faster retrieval without consuming NCBI API quota compared to fetch_article_details. It names the alternative tool and implies precedence over fetch_article_details for cached data.

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