get_cache_status

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

The annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds a valuable behavioral detail: it makes no network request. This tells the agent this operation is safe, fast, and appropriate even in offline or rate-limit-sensitive contexts.

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 entire description is one tightly written sentence that states the resource, the verb, and the key non-network behavior. Every word adds value, and the most important distinguishing feature is placed at the end without sacrificing clarity.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool displays, implies no side effects, and gives the agent enough to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description loses no points since it does not omit any required parameter context.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and identifies an unambiguous resource ('persistent cache counts and configured freshness limits'). It also adds the unique capability 'without a network request', which clearly distinguishes this diagnostic tool from projection, player, and league-data siblings.

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 makes the intended context clear: use this when cache status or freshness limits are needed and no network call is desired. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the zero-parameter diagnostic nature makes the usage condition easy to infer.

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