VIPMP cache stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds the useful context that the tool inspects the on-disk cache and reports freshness/TTL, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as cost or staleness of stats themselves; with strong annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, with the core action and output fields front-loaded and the diagnostic use cases in the second sentence. There is no filler, and every clause adds useful information.

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?

This is a simple, zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and full annotations. The description covers what it returns and why an agent would use it, so an agent has enough context to select and invoke it correctly without further documentation.

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 has zero parameters, so the description bears no parameter-documentation burden. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no inputs whose semantics need explanation; the description instead clarifies what the returned statistics will contain.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return statistics about the on-disk docs cache,' and enumerates the key outputs (entries, fresh/stale split, TTL, cache file path). It is clearly a read-only stats operation and is not likely to be confused with cache-warming or cache-clearing siblings, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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 provides explicit use cases: debugging 'why did it return stale content' or checking 'is the cache being used at all.' This tells an agent when to call it, but it does not mention when not to use it or contrast it with warm_vipmp_cache/vipmp_cache_clear.

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