aureon_refresh_watchdog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. 'Refresh ... from live data' implies an external fetch and a state mutation, but the description never says whether portfolio/objective state is overwritten, whether this is idempotent, whether it is costly or rate-limited, or what permissions it requires.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the two effects (refresh marks, re-evaluate objectives) are stated in a logical order. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for the behavioral weight it must carry.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and no description of return values or side effects leave the agent unable to predict the result of a call that appears to mutate live portfolio state. For a zero-parameter, presumably state-changing maintenance tool, 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?

The schema declares zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter information is missing.

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 pairs a specific verb ('refresh') with concrete resources ('portfolio marks', 'objectives'), so an agent can tell what the call accomplishes. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as aureon_sync_portfolio or aureon_apply_market_event, which plausibly touch the same state.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus aureon_sync_portfolio, aureon_run_portfolio_watch_demo, or the objective-listing tools. The agent must guess whether this is a periodic maintenance call or a prerequisite for other operations.

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