ecosystem_refresh

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs an incremental refresh, probes each active-set repo once, writes a status snapshot, re-queues shallow summary only for repos with new pushes, and handles 404/403 errors. It also mentions the 'hint' field in the response. This is good transparency, though it could be improved by noting potential side effects or resource usage.

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 concise, consisting of three sentences that efficiently convey the purpose, replacement context, and workflow. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for easier parsing, but it remains effective.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the workflow, the response hint field, and the replacement of the weekly cron. It explains the conditions for re-queuing shallow summaries. It is complete enough for an agent to use the tool appropriately, though it could mention the effect on the ecosystem state.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'notes', with a description that matches the one in the tool description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and no extra value is given.

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 tool's purpose: 'On-demand incremental refresh of the project's active ecosystem set.' It specifies the verb 'refresh' and the resource 'ecosystem set', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ecosystem_scan, ecosystem_scan_periodic, and ecosystem_apply_shallow_summary by explaining its specific role as a trigger for subsequent shallow scans.

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 explains when to use this tool: 'refresh happens when the user asks for it' (on-demand). It provides context about the retired weekly cron and outlines the subsequent step of running shallow scans via ultracode/Workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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