refresh_sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses that changed pages update the .md and indexes, that failures preserve the last good copy and log an error, and that runs can be slow. It omits auth/permission requirements, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences, each front-loaded with new information: scope, success/failure behavior, then timing. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers behavior, error handling, and timing for an annotation-free tool. The missing piece is explicit routing against sibling tools such as save_url.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it names the path format (knowledge/sources/…) and explains the default ('todas si no pasás path') for the sole parameter, making the optionality meaningful.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Vuelve a bajar una fuente guardada') and scopes it to saved sources under knowledge/sources/. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like save_url (new URLs) and list_sources (enumeration).

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?

It states the two invocation modes (single path vs all when path is omitted), which implies when each applies. However, it never contrasts with alternatives like save_url or refresh_connectors, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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