Refresh UNets

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 states the HTTP endpoint and action, but doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., whether it unloads models, impacts generation), or interaction with other refresh tools. The endpoint reference adds some technical clarity, but behavioral details are minimal for a state-changing operation.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and includes the endpoint for technical reference. Zero waste, appropriately concise.

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 simple no-parameter refresh action, the description is sufficient to understand the operation. However, given the absence of annotations and output schema, a bit more context on what 'rescan' entails or when it's necessary could improve completeness. Still, the core function is adequately covered.

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 0 parameters and schema description coverage is 100%. Since there are no params to document, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, which applies here.

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 the tool rescans UNet/DiT model folders, which is a specific action on a clear resource. It distinguishes from siblings like sdnext_refresh_checkpoints and sdnext_refresh_loras by focusing on UNets, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 implies when to use it (after adding/modifying UNet-format files in model folders) but doesn't state explicit conditions or exclusions. Given the sibling tools that also refresh model categories, some guidance on when to choose this over others would be helpful, but the purpose is clear enough.

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