get_runtime_cache_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Inspect' and 'summarize' imply a non-destructive read operation, which is useful. However, the description does not disclose whether the tool has any side effects, how it resolves the optional runtime_dir, or whether it only reads without modifying cache candidates.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

While an output schema exists and may cover return values, the description lacks usage context, explicit read-only assurance, and guidance on the optional runtime_dir parameter. For a tool with no annotations and a closely related destructive sibling, this minimal description is insufficient for confident tool selection and invocation.

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 input schema provides zero description coverage for runtime_dir, and the tool description only references the 'MCP runtime directory' without explicitly explaining how runtime_dir relates to it. The optionality, default behavior, and expected path format are left completely unspecified.

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 specific verbs ('Inspect', 'summarize') and names a clear resource ('MCP runtime directory', 'temporary Vivado cache candidates'). It conveys a read-oriented diagnostic purpose, but doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as clean_runtime_cache or get_workflow_trace_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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling list includes clean_runtime_cache, which is conceptually related but likely destructive, an explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement would materially help an agent select correctly.

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