refresh_board

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions that it forces a re-fetch and that the pool is cached for a TTL, which explains the operation's effect. It does not mention potential side effects like performance cost or return format, 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, tightly focused on the action and its trigger condition. It front-loads the primary purpose and avoids any extraneous detail. No wasted words.

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 description explains what the tool does and when to use it, but there is no output schema and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., status, updated data). This omission could leave an agent uncertain about the result. Given the simple nature of the tool, this is a minor gap but still incomplete.

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 schema trivially covers everything. The description adds no parameter explanation, which is appropriate given there are none. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to elaborate further.

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 function: forcing a re-fetch of the player pool, projections, and value math. It also provides the rationale for why this is needed (caching, staleness). This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 says when to call the tool: when projections change (injury news, depth chart move) or the cache looks stale. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_available_players, but the 'call this if...' condition gives clear usage direction.

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