KIROK_refresh_mental_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it updates the insight, but does not mention if the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires specific permissions. Since output schema exists, return values are likely covered elsewhere, but side effects are not addressed.

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 two clear sentences plus an Args block. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is efficiently structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the output schema likely documents return values, the description covers purpose, parameters, and the key behavioral aspect (re-analysis). It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., model must exist) or concurrency, but the tool's simplicity makes it adequate.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explicitly describes both parameters: model_id (ID) and limit (max memories, default 20, max 100), providing constraints and defaults beyond the schema.

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 action 'refresh' on a 'mental model', specifying that it re-analyzes current memories and updates the insight. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_mental_model (retrieval) and delete_mental_model (deletion).

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 implies usage when an existing mental model needs updating with the latest memories, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. Given the sibling context, the guidance is clear enough.

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