Refresh the local Radius source cache

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the no-op behavior under specific conditions and indicates it updates a local cache. While it could mention potential wait time or resource usage, the current disclosure is adequate for a simple cache refresh operation.

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?

Two sentences that front-load the main action ('Pulls the latest changes...') and then provide the key conditional. No extraneous words; every sentence adds value.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the core behavior and the no-op condition. It does not describe return values, but that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity. Slight room for improvement by noting what happens after sync (e.g., cache state).

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, and the input schema is empty. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no parameter details, but the baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 clearly states the tool refreshes the local cache by pulling latest changes from the radius-project/radius repository. The title reinforces this as 'Refresh the local Radius source cache'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (radius_source_search, radius_source_read, radius_docs_sync) which are for searching, reading, or syncing docs, respectively.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (to refresh cache) and when not (when external checkout configured via RADIUS_REPO_PATH or sibling radius/ directory). The no-op condition is clearly described, helping the agent decide if calling this tool is appropriate.

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