refresh_robot_library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Force re-scan' but does not explain side effects, whether the operation is blocking, network/asset-server dependencies, failure behavior, or any rate/performance implications.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the usage trigger is stated directly, making the description efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple optional-parameter refresh operation, the core purpose and trigger are covered, and the output schema covers return values. However, with no annotations and no parameter information, the description leaves gaps around invocation semantics and operational behavior.

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 does not mention' command_id' or'idempotency_key' at all. The parameter names imply some meaning, but since the schema provides no property descriptions, the description should compensate and does not.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Force re-scan the asset server for available robots.' It clearly conveys that this tool refreshes the robot library rather than lists or creates robots, distinguishing it from siblings like list_available_robots and create_robot.

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?

'Use this if new robot assets were added' gives a clear condition for when to call the tool. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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