refresh_curated_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format ({success, total, sha256, cached_at, error?}) and that it's a manual override of automatic processes. However, it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing cache, whether the operation is idempotent, or blocking behavior—gaps given the absence of annotations.

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, well-structured with numbered use cases and a clear return format section. Every sentence contributes: purpose, automatic behavior context, use cases, and return shape. No redundancy or fluff.

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 no-parameter tool with an output schema (indicated by the Returns section), the description adequately covers purpose, usage scenarios, and return structure. It does not address relationship to sibling tools like query_curated_list beyond the refresh/query distinction, but the tool is simple and self-contained.

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, but none are needed. The return format description partially helps understand what the tool produces, which is useful context beyond the empty schema.

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 opens with '手动刷新 echocn 缓存' (manually refresh echocn cache), providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'query_curated_list' by focusing on refresh operation rather than query/read.

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 states automatic refresh on MCP startup and daily background refresh, then lists three concrete use cases (initial deployment verification, suspected stale cache, troubleshooting). This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly when not to use, as manual refresh is reserved for exceptional cases.

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