lattice_refresh_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions re-polling every worker, which is a potentially expensive operation, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., network load, time consumption) or prerequisites. The behavioral impact beyond the annotation gap is poorly communicated.

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 conveys the essential information without any waste. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what the tool returns (if anything) or how to interpret the results. Given the complexity (an action that refreshes data across workers), the description is incomplete.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds meaning by explaining the tool's effect (refreshing the version data), which compensates for the lack of parameters. Baseline for zero params is 4.

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 ('Re-poll every worker') and the outcome ('refreshing what lattice_get_versions reports'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool lattice_get_versions by implying it triggers a refresh rather than just reading.

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 context (when you need updated versions) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lattice_get_versions, nor does it state when not to use it.

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