mfds_refresh

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it reveals the multi-step pipeline (crawl, parse, load, reassess) and warns about potential slowness. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns without contradiction. The additional pipeline context helps the agent understand the cost and side effects of invoking this tool.

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 very concise: a single sentence in Korean that front-loads the operation type and pipeline steps. Every word serves a purpose, and the warning about slowness is useful. It sacrifices some structural clarity (e.g., no bullet points or emphasis) but is efficient for the information conveyed.

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 complexity (multi-step refresh, multiple parameters, and output schema), the description together with annotations and schema provides sufficient context. The pipeline steps, write nature, and speed warning cover most operational aspects. However, it does not explain the purpose of the refresh (e.g., updating cached data) or when the output schema might be relevant, but the output schema itself handles return value details.

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 input schema already has full coverage (100%) with descriptions for all three parameters ('board', 'max_pages', 'full'). The description text adds no additional meaning or context about these parameters beyond what the schema provides. According to the guidelines, when schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed this baseline.

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 explicitly defines the tool as a refresh pipeline: '게시판 크롤 → 첨부 파싱 → 적재 → 상태 재판정' (crawl bulletin board, parse attachments, load, reassess status). The verb is implied by the name 'refresh' and the pipeline. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'mfds_get_document' (single retrieval) or 'mfds_search_guidelines' (search), as it is a batch update operation.

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 some usage context by labeling it as '운영/쓰기' (write operation) and warning it may be slow ('느릴 수 있음'). This implies it should be used for bulk updates rather than quick queries. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus specific alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The guidelines are therefore implicit rather than explicit.

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