refresh_wiki

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost none of it: no indication of whether the call blocks, how long a rebuild takes, whether the index is unavailable mid-rebuild, or whether the operation is safe to repeat. "Rebuild the index" signals a state-changing side effect but its scope and cost are left entirely to inference.

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 no padding or boilerplate. The adverb "now" is the only word that does not add information, a minor cost in an otherwise tight statement.

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 output schema means return values need not be explained, and with zero parameters the surface is small. However, for a mutation-style maintenance call with no annotations, the description omits the operational context an agent needs to invoke it safely, such as duration, blocking behavior, and whether concurrent reads are affected.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter meaning is missing because no parameters exist.

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 pair (fetch upstream data, rebuild the index) against a named resource (the wiki), so an agent knows this is a forced refresh-and-reindex operation rather than a read. It is distinguishable from read-only siblings like wiki_status, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

"Now" implies an on-demand trigger for when local data is stale, which is implied usage rather than stated guidance. It never tells the agent when to prefer this over wiki_status or ordinary wiki reads, nor whether it should be called routinely or only after upstream changes.

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