refresh_gallery_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a dependency on extract_public_submissions and TINYFISH_API_KEY for live re-extraction, but it does not explain what 'refresh' does concretely (e.g., overwrites stored data, is idempotent, or any side effects). The mention of 'stored' implies an update but lacks detail.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a necessary caveat. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists), and the description covers the primary purpose and an important dependency. It does not explain what 'gallery snapshot' means, but that is likely domain knowledge. The note about extract_public_submissions adds necessary context for correct invocation.

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 only parameter, hackathon_id, has a self-explanatory name but the schema provides no description (0% schema coverage). The description adds minimal additional meaning by noting 'watched (or any) hackathon', which clarifies that it applies broadly, but it does not explain the format or expected value of hackathon_id. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate more.

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 action ('Refresh') and the target resource ('the stored gallery snapshot') for a specific scope ('a watched (or any) hackathon'). The verb 'refresh' is distinct from sibling tools like extract_public_submissions, which implies extraction rather than updating an existing stored state.

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 provides context that this works for watched or any hackathon, and includes a prerequisite note: live re-extraction requires calling extract_public_submissions first when TINYFISH_API_KEY is configured. This implies when to use this tool versus extract_public_submissions, though it doesn't explicitly state 'use this when you want to update an existing snapshot without full re-extraction'.

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