cache

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. The description clearly discloses the destructive 'clear to delete rows' path, scopes the tool to cached pages and searches, and explains the operational modes (query, get, stats, clear). It does not cover irreversibility or eviction/persistence details, but the destructive behavior is explicit.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every clause earns its place. It communicates scope, usage timing, cost rationale, and mode selection without 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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core invocation model, the main modes, the destructive path, and the decision to check the cache before more expensive operations. Field-level details such as defaults, limit, since_hours, and clear requirements are fully covered by the schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value beyond the schema by grouping modes ('Use query for full-text search, get to pull full content, stats for counts, clear to delete rows') and by adding operational details such as Chinese-substring and English-word search behavior.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Query the LOCAL CACHE of every page this server has fetched and every search it has run.' It also differentiates from the sibling fetch/search tools by telling the agent to check here before re-fetching or re-searching.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Check here BEFORE re-fetching or re-searching — a hit is instant and free while a fresh fetch costs 5-60s.' This tells the agent when the cache is the right choice, and why, which is strong routing guidance relative to alternatives.

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