perch_refresh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Hard-reload' usefully signals a cache-bypassing reload and 'new console lines' implies an incremental console diff, but it does not say whether the reload discards in-page state, whether the preview must already be running, whether the call blocks until load completes, or whether it mutates anything.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the returned diagnostics second. No filler, nothing redundant.

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 tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what the call produces (three categories of diagnostics) and that it reloads the preview. The remaining gaps — blocking behavior, session prerequisites, and how it relates to the dedicated console/error tools — are secondary but not trivial given 26 siblings.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because there is none to add.

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 verb ('hard-reload') and resource ('live preview') plus the payload it reports (syntax errors, runtime errors, new console lines). It is clearer than most siblings, though it does not distinguish itself from perch_console/perch_errors, which appear to surface overlapping information.

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?

Usage is only implied: reloading after edits to surface errors. There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. an active preview session), and no routing advice toward perch_console or perch_errors, which are the obvious alternatives for reading the same diagnostics.

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