refresh_singers

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. It conveys the core trait that a rescan replaces a restart and implies a non-destructive refresh, but says nothing about whether OpenUtau must be running, whether the scan can fail or be slow on large libraries, or whether an in-flight project referencing a missing singer is affected.

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 in English with a Japanese mirror; each version is waste-free and leads with the action. The bilingual duplication doubles the length, which is a localization tradeoff rather than padding, so only a minor deduction.

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-argument, no-output-schema utility action, the description covers what it does and why you'd invoke it. The remaining gap is environmental context — whether the app must be running and whether the refreshed singer list is returned or merely applied — which is minor at this complexity.

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 and the schema is a bare empty object, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing arguments.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Rescan") with a specific resource ("the Singers folder") and states the user-visible effect: newly installed voicebanks become available without restarting OpenUtau. That is enough to distinguish it from a plain enumeration tool like list_singers, though the description never names any sibling to make the contrast explicit.

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 trigger condition is stated plainly: use this after installing a new voicebank when you don't want to restart OpenUtau. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. list_singers/list_voicebanks for querying what's already loaded), so the routing signal is clear but not exhaustive.

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