refresh_cache

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 discloses the main behavior (pull and rebuild) and the return value (commit SHA delta and new total count). It does not mention potential side effects like invalidating cache or performance impact, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 two sentences, efficiently front-loaded with the primary action followed by usage guidance and return information. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. It could mention potential side effects or dependencies (e.g., requiring network access), but these are implicit. Given its simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist; it instead provides context for when to invoke the tool. This is appropriate and does not need compensation.

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?

Description states a specific action: 'Pull the latest commits from the uiverse-io/galaxy repo and rebuild the in-memory index.' This clearly identifies the verb, resource, and scope, and distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on querying or retrieving cached data.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Use when you suspect the cache is stale (last sync > 1 week).' This gives a concrete trigger condition. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, though it implicitly relates to cache_status.

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