bmahs_refresh

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict—refreshing is a read-like operation that updates a cached view. The description adds context beyond the annotation by specifying the mechanism (multicast query) and the effect (refresh self-descriptions), giving the agent a better mental model of what happens. It does not detail potential side effects like network traffic or latency, but given the read-only hint, this is acceptable.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the action and mechanism; the second lists the usage triggers. The most important information (what it does) is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place. It is compact yet comprehensive for a zero-parameter tool.

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 (no parameters, no output schema, read-only annotation), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how it works, and when to call it. It does not describe the return value or post-refresh behavior, but since no output schema exists, this is not a critical gap. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivial (coverage 100%). The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the absence of parameters makes this dimension a non-issue. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to document; the description correctly stays focused on the operation itself.

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 ('重新扫描' / rescan) and the resource (BMAHS devices), and explains it sends a multicast query to refresh each device's self-description. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bmahs_devices (likely listing devices) and bmahs_describe (describing a device), as it focuses on refreshing the device list rather than retrieving or modifying specific entries.

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 provides explicit conditions for when to invoke the tool: when the device list is empty, a new device has just powered on, or the list is suspected to be stale. These clear triggers guide an agent to choose this tool over siblings, which have different purposes (e.g., bmahs_occupy/release for device control, bmahs_call/screenshot for device interaction).

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