peaka_get_cache_statuses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the response will contain (caching state, execution history, progress), but does not go further into behaviors like pagination, project-not-found behavior, or other edge cases. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact: two sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose statement followed by concrete prerequisite instructions. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the one prerequisite-sensitive situation. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents projectId at 100% coverage. The description adds practical usage meaning: if the agent does not know the projectId, it should call peaka_list_projects and ask the user, then remember the chosen projectId across the conversation. This aids correct invocation beyond the raw schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get all cache statuses for tables in the Peaka project.' It enumerates what is returned — 'current caching state, execution history, and progress' — making the tool's function immediately clear and distinguishable from sibling status tools such as get_materialized_query_statuses.

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?

It gives clear contextual guidance: if projectId is unknown, call peaka_list_projects first and ask the user, and remember the chosen projectId. This is helpful but does not explicitly contrast with alternative status tools or state when not to use this tool.

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