data_refresh

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the external network source and the 7-day cache policy, adding useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential latency, failure modes, or the effect on the local dataset, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

One concise sentence with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the cache qualification is kept as an effective parenthetical. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter refresh tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what is refreshed, from where, and cache duration. It does not describe return values or errors, but for a simple refresh operation this is a minor omission.

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 there are no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly focuses on tool behavior rather than input syntax, meeting the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 specific action 'Re-extract' on a specific resource, the 'buildables dataset', with a clear source ('wardogs.zone'). This distinguishes it from sibling read tools like list_buildables and describe_buildable, which consume the dataset rather than refresh it.

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 cache note ('cached 7 days otherwise') implies this tool is for refreshing stale data, but the description does not explicitly say when to use it instead of list_buildables or describe_buildable. No alternatives are named, so usage guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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