x402_catalog_refresh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool re-fetches and regenerates tools, which is a significant side effect, but it does not elaborate on whether this is destructive, how it affects existing tools, or any potential consequences. The behavior is partially disclosed but not thoroughly.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the key information: 'FREE' and the action of re-fetching/regenerating. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and effect. No unnecessary repetition 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?

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), and the description explains its main action and consequence. However, it does not mention what the tool returns, whether it requires authentication, or the precise scope of 'regenerate' (e.g., immediate tool updates vs. next session). Given the absence of an output schema, a bit more detail would improve completeness.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. It adds no param-related info, but none is needed.

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 re-fetches the live x402 catalog and regenerates catalog-derived tools. It uses a specific verb ('re-fetch') and resource ('catalog'), and mentions the effect (picking up new/removed/re-priced endpoints), distinguishing it from the read-only sibling tool x402_catalog.

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 implies the tool should be used to refresh the catalog and its derived tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. It gives context ('FREE', 'picks up new/removed/re-priced endpoints') but lacks explicit usage boundaries or alternative references.

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