get_cache_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the returned data (hit ratio, totals) and says nothing about authentication requirements, time-range scoping, side effects, or whether it is a read-only operation. The presence of auth-related parameters is not reflected in the description.

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?

One short sentence with no fluff. The key action and output hint are front-loaded. Every word earns its place; the parenthetical is a useful detail without bloat.

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 tool has no output schema, no annotations, and seven parameters, but the description only says 'Get cache statistics (hit ratio, totals)'. It omits important context such as whether from/to define a time range, what 'totals' refers to, and whether authentication is required. An agent can infer a basic call but not confidently understand scope or prerequisites.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but it does not need to since the schema fully documents all seven parameters. No additional compensation is required.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Get cache statistics' and adds clarifying details '(hit ratio, totals)'. This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like get_cache_operations by focusing on aggregate stats, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_cache_operations or get_redis_commands. It states what the tool does but not the conditions or scenarios that would make it the right choice.

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