refresh_corpus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a mutation (refreshing the corpus) but does not explain side effects, duration, idempotency, or consequences for existing data. 'Continuous-ingestion style' hints at behavior but leaves important details unstated.

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 concise sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and target, though the brevity leaves out useful context that would not hurt structure.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool lacks annotations and provides minimal context about its effect on the system. The description does not explain prerequisites, parameter usage, or what the refresh does to the corpus, making it incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description entirely omits the 'keywords' parameter. While the schema shows a default and type, the meaning of keywords in the context of a corpus refresh is not explained, leaving the agent to guess how to set it.

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 ('Trigger') and resource ('refresh of the local grant corpus'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling search/list/run tools. The phrase 'continuous-ingestion style' adds some ambiguity about what exactly the refresh does, but the overall purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies usage through the word 'refresh,' without stating prerequisites, when not to use it, or that it should precede search operations.

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