refresh_source

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

The line 'Returns a short status, not the output' is genuinely valuable and non-duplicative — it prevents an agent from calling this expecting output payload. However, the annotations flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description never addresses what gets overwritten, what permissions are needed, or how failures surface; 'store its output' only implicitly suggests replacement of prior output. Useful but incomplete against the destructive profile.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the most decision-relevant caveat about the return value. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does and roughly what comes back. But given destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, it should say what state is overwritten, whether prior output is lost, and what a 'short status' indicates on failure — all absent.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema covers it at 100% ('Command source name'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description never mentions the name argument or how it is resolved against list_sources, so it adds nothing on this dimension beyond the baseline.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Run a command source locally') plus a secondary effect ('store its output'), so the agent knows this executes and caches rather than merely reads. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like run_command, run_task, or read_source, which an agent must infer from the 'source' noun alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent is left to infer that this should be used when a named source's stored output needs regenerating, versus run_command for ad-hoc commands or read_source for retrieving existing output, but the description never says so.

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