waypath_refresh_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the WRITE nature, idempotency, and that it does not call external services. This is clear behavioral transparency, though additional details like error handling or required permissions could improve it.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It covers purpose, when to use, idempotency, and external service behavior, leaving no obvious gaps for an agent.

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 100% with one parameter (pageId) already described. The description adds context about the parameter's source ('as returned by waypath_page or waypath_review_queue'), which is helpful but not extensive. Since schema already provides most semantics, the description adds moderate value, earning a baseline 3.

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 purpose: 'rebuild an existing knowledge page against the current store state and update its cached summary/markdown.' It specifies the action (rebuild and update) and the resource (knowledge page), distinguishing it from sibling tools by mentioning when to use it.

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?

Provides explicit usage scenarios: 'Use on pages flagged "stale" by waypath_review_queue, or after a large batch of promotions that should be reflected in a briefing page.' It also mentions idempotency, but lacks explicit when-not to use or alternatives, so not a perfect 5.

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