obj_refresh_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose useful implementation details: GraphicallyInvalidate for schematics and a PCB:Zoom Redraw command for PCB. It also says a confirmation dictionary is returned, though it does not discuss whether the active document is required or whether any state is altered.

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 short and front-loads the main action. The mechanism details are useful, but the 'Returns' sentence is somewhat redundant given the presence of an output schema.

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 an output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the action, the backend mechanism per document type, and the return shape. The main omission is guidance on when to use it instead of sibling view/render tools.

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 information because none is needed.

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 and resource: 'Force a redraw/refresh of the current document.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from nearby display-related siblings such as obj_zoom, app_canvas, sch_render_svg, or pcb_focus_board.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description explains internal mechanisms for schematics versus PCB, but not the conditions that should lead an agent to call this instead of another redraw or view tool.

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