cache_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Show' implies a read-only status check with no side effects, but this is not explicitly stated. For a simple status tool this is adequate, but it could be improved by noting that it performs no mutations.

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 only two sentences. The first defines the tool, the second gives usage guidance. There is no redundant information or fluff, and the key details are front-loaded in the first sentence.

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's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential information about what the cache status shows and when to use it. It lists the specific data points (page coverage, total keywords, category breakdown), which is sufficient for a status-check tool. It could benefit from specifying the output format, but that is not critical here.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter meaning. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; there is no schema or parameter info to clarify beyond what the description already conveys.

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: 'Show current ABA cache state' and specifies the exact content (page coverage, total keywords, category breakdown). This is a specific verb+resource construction that distinguishes it from sibling cache operation tools like cache_aba_pull and cache_clear, which perform actions rather than report status.

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 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' directive provides a clear context: checking if cache covers the page ranges needed for research. This offers actionable guidance, though it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools. The usage context is clear but not exhaustive.

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