ecosystem_refresh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses the write side effect (status snapshot), the re-queue of Stage 0 shallow summaries keyed on new pushes, error semantics (404/403 mark deleted/private), and an explicit negative behavior ('Refresh does not run the re-queued shallow scans') plus where continuation instructions live (the hint field).

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then layers side-effect and follow-up detail; every sentence adds behavioral value. Slightly verbose in the second paragraph but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, yet the description still orients the agent on the hint field. Mutation behavior, error handling, and the non-executing re-queue semantics are all covered for a nontrivial state-changing tool.

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?

Only one optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'notes' fully. The description adds nothing about the parameter, but with a single fully-documented optional param, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 ('On-demand incremental refresh of the project's active ecosystem set') and frames the scope precisely as the active set (top_n by stars), distinguishing it from background/periodic refresh mechanisms among the many ecosystem_* siblings.

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?

Explains the trigger context ('Nothing refreshes the archive in the background; it changes only when this tool runs') and routes the follow-up step explicitly to ecosystem_apply_shallow_summary via the response hint. It does not explicitly name when to prefer this over ecosystem_scan or ecosystem_scan_periodic, so routing against all alternatives is incomplete.

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