refresh

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the required 'refresh' scope, which is useful, but it does not disclose the side effects of reloading the index, such as whether it replaces the current index, impacts in-flight queries, or what happens if the disk read fails. For a mutation-like tool, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys both the action and the prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the essential action and scope requirement are covered. However, with no output schema and no behavioral context about the reload's impact, an agent may not know what to expect after invocation or under what circumstances to call it beyond the scope hint. It is adequate but not rich.

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%: the only parameter 'token' is fully described as a bearer token from TERO_TOKENS. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies per the calibration guidelines.

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 the specific verb 'reload' with the resource 'served index' and source 'from disk', clearly stating what the tool does. This distinguishes it from the sibling query tools (query_by_status, text_search, etc.), which are all read/search operations.

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 implies usage when the index on disk needs to be reloaded into the served environment, and the scope requirement ('requires the refresh scope') provides a clear prerequisite. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling tools are all query operations, making the refresh action contextually distinct and easy to select when appropriate.

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