Refresh LoRAs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states 'Rescan LoRA model folders' and the endpoint, without mentioning side effects (e.g., whether it updates lists, requires restart, or is non-destructive). Minimal transparency beyond the action itself.

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 content. It includes the essential action and endpoint, making it extremely concise and well-structured.

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 action, the description is adequate but lacks context about expected results or prerequisites. It does not explain what 'rescan' entails operationally (e.g., file system scanning, list updates) or what the tool returns. Given the simplicity, it is minimally complete but could be more informative.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter detail (correctly, as none exist). It does not introduce any ambiguity.

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 clearly states the action ('Rescan') and the target resource ('LoRA model folders'), which distinguishes it from sibling refresh tools like refresh_checkpoints and refresh_vae. The endpoint is also included, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical use cases (e.g., after adding LoRA files) or any exclusions. The description is purely declarative with no contextual advice.

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