refresh_ea_registry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It does explicitly state that the tool rebuilds two specific files, indicating a write/mutation operation. However, it does not disclose side effects such as overwriting manual edits, prerequisites like compilation, or whether the process is safe/idempotent. The core behavior is disclosed, but important behavioral nuances are missing.

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 sentence with no filler. The action ('Rebuild') and resources are front-loaded, followed by the condition. Every word contributes value, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states what is rebuilt and when. It could optionally mention what 'EA source' refers to or whether any prior step (e.g., compile) is required, but for a focused registry-refresh command, the essential context is present.

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 there is no parameter semantic burden. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the '0 params = baseline 4' rule applies. The trigger condition 'after an EA source changes' covers the only contextual input the agent needs.

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 ('Rebuild') and names the exact resources it acts on ('experts/registry.json and REGISTRY.md'). It also includes a trigger condition ('after an EA source changes') that clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'ea_registry', which likely reads or displays the registry. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 a clear usage context: run this tool after an EA source changes. This tells the agent when to invoke it and implicitly separates it from read-only registry access tools. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the trigger condition is sufficient guidance for a zero-parameter maintenance command.

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