refresh_knowledge_base

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that this is a manual trigger and that automatic watching is the normal path, but it does not describe side effects, duration, idempotency, or what the return value looks like. Some behavior is conveyed, but not fully.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the usage caveat is stated immediately in a compact follow-up sentence.

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?

Given the simplicity of a zero-parameter trigger, the description covers the essential purpose and the main usage caution. It could mention what happens after the refresh or any output it returns, but for invoking the tool correctly the current description is largely sufficient.

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 schema already fully defines the invocation surface. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed; baseline 4 is appropriate 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?

The description states a specific action ('refresh the knowledge base') and the intended outcome ('detect newly added files'). It is clear enough to distinguish from the listed sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from.

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 clear context for when the tool is not needed ('Usually not needed as file watching is automatic'), effectively telling the agent to avoid redundant calls. It doesn't spell out explicit conditions for use, but the implication that manual refresh is only for exceptional cases is clear.

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