refresh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation hits the network and ignores the cache TTL (implying cost/latency), but says nothing about failure behavior, rate limits, whether persisted state changes, or what is returned.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and mechanism, followed by the edge-case instruction. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description must stand alone, and it covers the central behavior and the no-arg case adequately. It leaves gaps on the library identifier's accepted form and on post-refresh feedback (success/error indication), which matters for a network-performing 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?

One parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the omit-semantics of the optional parameter but never says what a valid 'library' value looks like (name, ID, or URL), leaving the key ambiguity unresolved.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Force-refetch a library's docs from the network') plus the distinguishing mechanism ('bypassing the cache TTL'). An agent can tell this apart from get_docs or list_libraries by the cache-bypass behavior, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete operational instruction for the no-argument case ('Omit library to refresh everything'), which prevents a common misuse. It does not state when this should be preferred over siblings like get_docs or warm_project, and names no exclusions.

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