refresh_selectors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key traits: returns the dropped entries, lazy re-derivation requiring a page, and config-pinned selectors are never touched. This is meaningful beyond what a schema would provide, though it doesn't mention irreversibility or prerequisites.

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 succinct and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by additional behavior in short, focused sentences. Every sentence contributes unique information, and the description is easy to scan.

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 covers the tool's purpose, return value, lazy re-derivation, and an important edge case (config-pinned selectors). However, given the missing parameter semantics and lack of explicit usage guidance, the description isn't fully complete for an agent to use the tool without further assumptions. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the parameter gap remains.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate. It refers to 'these fields' but does not clarify the format or semantics of 'domain' or 'fields', leaving the agent without guidance on what values to provide. The parameters are only given as string types with no further explanation.

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 states the tool's action: 'Forget the cached selectors for these fields so the next scrape re-derives them.' The verb 'forget' (invalidate) and resource 'cached selectors' are specific, and this distinguishes it from siblings like list_cached_selectors (listing) and scrape (performing the scrape).

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 provides clear context for when this tool is relevant—when you want to force re-derivation of selectors on the next scrape. It notes that re-derivation is lazy and happens on next scrape, and that config-pinned selectors are untouched. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stays one point below the top.

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