ypollak2/llm-router

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and succeeds well: it discloses cache internals (stores ClassificationResult objects), key composition (SHA-256 of prompt + quality_mode + min_model), and critical validity semantics (budget pressure applied fresh, so entries remain valid). Could explicitly state read-only nature.

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?

Two sentences total, both essential: first establishes function and metrics, second provides critical cache invalidation logic. Front-loaded with the action verb. No redundant or wasted language.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description appropriately omits return value details. It adequately covers the tool's purpose, internal cache mechanics, and validity constraints for a parameter-less statistics inspection tool.

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters. Per guidelines, 0 parameters establishes a baseline of 4. The description correctly omits parameter discussion since none exist, and no parameter semantics are needed.

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 specific action ('Show') and resource ('prompt classification cache statistics'), listing exact metrics provided (hit rate, entries, memory usage). It effectively distinguishes from sibling 'llm_cache_clear' by specifying read-only statistics retrieval versus deletion.

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?

While the function is implied by 'Show... statistics' (use when monitoring cache performance), there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like 'llm_cache_clear' or prerequisites for interpretation. No 'when-not-to-use' or comparison to sibling tools is provided.

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