refresh_project

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

The description discloses the core behavior of updating cached state, but it does not clarify side effects, safety (read-only vs. mutating), idempotency, or whether it touches project files. With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and this is only minimally transparent.

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 sentence with no filler, directly stating the purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters and avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description gives the main action but lacks context about when to run, potential side effects, and what 'project discovery' entails. For a state-changing tool without annotations, this is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 is no parameter information needed. The description appropriately focuses on the action rather than parameters, and the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, which is warranted here.

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 clearly identifies the tool's function with a specific verb ('re-run') and resource ('project discovery'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools that target models, migrations, or factories. It is not a tautology and provides a clear sense of scope.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no scenarios where it is appropriate (e.g., after adding project files). The context is implied at best, leaving the agent without decision-support.

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