refresh_api_catalog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the refresh action, the fetching of the latest OpenAPI specification, and the return of a success message. However, it omits potential side effects like overwriting existing catalog data and failure modes if the prerequisite is not met, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 and front-loaded with an important prerequisite instruction. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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 tool, the description covers the action, return value, and a key prerequisite, which is largely complete. It could improve by mentioning error cases or side effects, but given the simplicity of the tool, it is sufficiently contextualized.

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 description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for zero-param tools is 4, and no additional parameter information is required.

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 refreshes the API catalog by fetching the latest OpenAPI specification. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools that search or load API operations/schemas.

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 explicitly instructs that FIRST_STEP_get_api_script_guide must be called first, establishing a clear prerequisite context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or provide alternative options, which prevents a 5.

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