刷新文档数据

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses network dependency, expected duration (10-30 秒), and the side effect of updating the local snapshot. It does not mention error handling or the exact nature of the local write, but the main behavioral traits are transparent enough for an agent to anticipate cost and effect.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then adds key operational details (network, duration, invocation timing). Every clause contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 refresh command, the description is complete: it explains what is refreshed, how many interfaces are affected, practical constraints (network/time), and when to invoke it. No output schema exists, but nothing about the return value is essential for deciding whether to call this 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantic burden on the description. The description implicitly confirms that the call takes no input and only performs a refresh action, matching the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 a specific verb-resource pair ('重新抓取全部 API 文档并更新本地快照') and gives a concrete scope (约 175 个接口). It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling query/lookup tools, since this is a snapshot refresh operation rather than a read/query tool.

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 explicitly states when to call it: '首次使用或文档可能已更新时调用' (first use or when docs may have been updated). It provides clear context and a decision rule, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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