refresh_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation 'may take several minutes as it clones repositories and rebuilds the embeddings index,' which is important behavioral context for an agent deciding to invoke it. However, it doesn't detail side effects like cache invalidation or whether the index is temporarily unavailable during rebuild.

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, first is the action, second is usage and behavior. No fluff, front-loaded with the operation name and scope.

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 zero-parameter maintenance tool, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and how long it takes. The output schema handles return values, so this is sufficient for an agent to make an informed decision.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because there are none; the schema already covers everything with 100% coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Force re-fetch all AT Protocol source repositories and rebuild the search index.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search/list/get tools, which are all read-only queries.

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: 'Use this when you suspect the documentation is outdated or when upstream repos have been updated.' This is clear context, though it does not list when-not-to-use or name alternative tools, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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