refresh_document

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It does mention that the tool invalidates and reloads, which implies a potential loss of cached data. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, return values, or failure modes, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and then adds usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 that there is no output schema and annotations are absent, the description should explain return behavior and parameter semantics at least at a high level. It does not. The tool has four parameters with vague meanings, and the description only addresses when to use it, not what the parameters do or what the tool returns. This makes the description incomplete for a tool that likely has nuanced 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 only 25%, with only 'pages' described. The description itself does not mention any parameters. The schema provides some minimal info (depth enum, timeoutSec min/max), but the semantics of depth and writeUuids remain unclear. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 function: 'Invalidate and reload the Document Model from InDesign.' This specifies the action (invalidate/reload), the resource (Document Model), and the source (InDesign), distinguishing it from siblings like get_document_model or scan_document.

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 usage context: 'Use only after manual edits in InDesign or when the cache may be stale — not before every mutation.' This tells when to use it, when not to use it, and implies alternatives (normal access without refresh).

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