refresh_js_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is incremental and only re-reads files with changed size or mtime, which is useful behavioral insight. It does not mention whether it mutates the in-memory project or what happens if the project is not loaded, but the parameter description mitigates the latter.

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 a single sentence that leads with the main action ('Rescans the file tree') and immediately provides the key behavioral detail ('incrementally syncs'). Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundant information.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the core operation and its incremental behavior. It does not describe return values, but for a refresh action this is not a significant gap. The context of being a project-management tool is clear from the sibling tools and parameter description.

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 only parameter 'name' is fully described in the schema as 'Name or path of the loaded project', covering 100% of parameter documentation. The tool description adds no further meaning to this parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 rescans the file tree and incrementally syncs the ts-morph project, specifying that only changed files are re-read. This uses a specific verb ('rescans', 'syncs') and resource ('ts-morph project'), and clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like load_js_project and unload_js_project.

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 the tool is used to refresh an already-loaded project after file changes, with the parameter requiring a loaded project. It provides clear context for when to use it but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, such as 'use this instead of reloading the entire project with load_js_project'.

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