重新拉取配方数据

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 this is a forced external pull plus cache rebuild, and that it is redundant in the normal flow. It does not say what happens if the game or bridge is unreachable (a likely precondition given the get_bridge_status sibling), or whether it returns a count or status.

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?

It has two sentences: the action is front-loaded, then the cost/precondition and the trigger condition. Every clause earns its place, and there is no filler.

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 cache-invalidation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, and trigger well. A small gap remains around failure modes (no game bridge or unreachable game client) and what a successful call returns, but nothing critical is missing 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no scoping arguments are needed, since the refresh is global, but there is nothing more to document.

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 re-fetch recipes from the game and rebuild the cache. It is clearly distinguished from the read-only siblings (get_recipes_for_output, get_recipe_details, etc.), since this operation performs cache invalidation rather than retrieval.

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?

It gives explicit when-not guidance: it is normally unnecessary because recipe reloads are auto-detected via dataVersion. It also gives explicit when guidance: use it only when the user says they just changed a recipe, or when data looks wrong. Nothing is left to inference.

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