dsh_plugin_refresh_catalog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states the core behavior: the tool makes a network call to the GitHub topic and overwrites the on-disk cache. This is a destructive (but expected) side effect and is disclosed. It doesn't discuss failure modes, timeouts, or rate limits, but for a simple refresh operation, the disclosure is adequate.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Force-refresh'), names the resource, and clearly states the side effect. Every word adds value; there is no wasted or redundant phrasing.

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), the description is fully complete. It explains the tool's purpose, the source of data, and the mutation performed. No additional context is necessary for an agent to invoke this tool 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, and the schema is empty (coverage 100%). The description correctly adds no parameter information because there is nothing to add. Per the scoring rule, 0 parameters establishes a baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('force-refresh') and clearly identifies the resource ('GitHub topic:dsh-plugin catalog') plus the action on it ('replace the on-disk cache'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like dsh_plugin_status or dsh_plugin_list, which are read-only operations, whereas this one mutates the local cache.

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 phrase 'force-refresh' and 'replace the on-disk cache' clearly implies when to use this tool: when the user wants to update the local catalog immediately, bypassing any normal caching. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., waiting for automatic refresh) or when not to use it, so it misses the explicit differentiation that would earn a 5.

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