refresh_index

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the operation re-fetches from GitHub and bypasses the cache, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects, failure conditions, network dependency, or whether the cache is invalidated before the fetch succeeds.

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 with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the usage condition follows directly. Every sentence earns its place.

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, straightforward refresh operation, the description is complete: it states what happens, where data comes from, and when to use it. The sibling tool is not confused with this one, and no output schema is needed for such a simple action.

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 the schema provides full coverage and the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds context about the underlying fetch behavior.

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 states a specific action ('Force a full re-fetch') applied to a specific resource ('the skill index from GitHub') and distinguishes it from the sibling search_skills, which searches rather than refreshes. There is 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 gives an explicit condition for use: 'Use this if you know the upstream skill repo was recently updated.' It could also state when not to use it, but the provided condition is clear and actionable enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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