cache_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Query' and phrase 'Exploring what's in the cache' imply a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, does not modify data, or has any side effects. It adds some context about cached data but lacks explicit safety or behavioral details.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a compact args list, and a clear usage note. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff, and important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, and usage, but it omits any description of the return value or output format. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the query returns (e.g., a list of matching keywords and volumes). It also lacks any mention of edge cases like empty cache or behavior when no filters are provided.

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 'Args' section provides meaningful explanations for all three parameters, going well beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults. It clarifies 'categories' with an example ('bulk,gift,wedding'), 'min_search_volume' as a 30-day metric, and 'limit' as max results, fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Query cached keywords by category and min search volume.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cache_status (status checks) and cache_clear (clearing cache), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides a clear usage scenario: 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN: Exploring what's in the cache for specific product lines.' While it gives good context, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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