refresh_symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It tells the agent this is a scanning/mutation operation that refreshes a registry, which is reasonable disclosure. However, it does not mention whether this is reversible, whether it could be slow for large projects, or what the return/result looks like—acceptable but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence states what it does, and the second explains when to use it and why. Front-loaded with the action verb immediately.

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 has 3 optional parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema. The description clearly states its purpose, usage trigger, and relationship to check_symbols. For a relatively simple refresh operation, this is complete enough—it tells the agent exactly when and how to use it. Could theoretically mention performance implications for large projects, but that's a minor gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters well (max_depth, max_files, project_path all have descriptions). The description adds the project-wide context and the auto-detection behavior for project_path is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since all parameter meanings are captured in the schema and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Re-scan the project and update the symbol registry') with a clear action scope. It distinguishes itself from check_symbols by explicitly explaining its relationship: refresh_symbols updates the registry so check_symbols can work against the latest state.

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 gives explicit 'when to use' guidance ('Run this after you have made code changes') and implicitly distinguishes it from check_symbols by framing it as the prerequisite for check_symbols to work correctly. It even references the sibling tool by name, making the workflow clear.

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