refresh

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the entire burden. It discloses the core behavioral trait (bypassing cache and re-fetching all brokers) and the return format (per-broker success/failure). However, it does not mention side effects such as potential latency, network calls, rate-limit impact, or whether it is read-only. This is a moderate disclosure but leaves out important operational implications for an agent.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action, specifies the scope, and immediately states the output. Every word adds value—'Bypass the cache' sets the key behavior, 're-fetch every configured broker right now' defines scope and urgency, and 'Returns per-broker success/failure' completes the contract. There is no waste or repetition.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what it operates on, and what it returns. The only missing details are minor—like whether the operation is asynchronous or may take a long time, or whether it can trigger error rates—but these are not critical for correct invocation. The description provides enough context for an agent to use it appropriately.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific info (as there are none), but it does enrich the overall meaning by clarifying the action and return structure. The schema is trivially covered since no parameters exist, and the description fully compensates for the lack of parameters by explaining the operation’s effect and output.

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 states a specific action ('Bypass the cache and re-fetch every configured broker right now') and a clear resource scope ('every configured broker'). It also mentions the return type (per-broker success/failure), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_brokers or get_stats that focus on listing or retrieving specific data. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately differentiates this tool.

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 when to use it (when you want to bypass cache and get fresh data immediately) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. It lacks guidance like 'use this instead of list_brokers when you need current data' or 'avoid if you don't need real-time data.' The phrase 'right now' conveys urgency, but the selection criteria are not spelled out.

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