assets-refresh

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full weight. It reveals the tool causes refresh and recompilation, but omits details on return value, error handling, or potential destruction of unsaved changes.

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?

Two sentences, both essential, with no extraneous text. The description front-loads the core action and provides concrete usage conditions.

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?

For a simple refresh tool, the description covers purpose and usage context adequately. It lacks details on return type or side effects, but given no output schema and low complexity, it is mostly complete.

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 fully describes the only parameter with enum options and default, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline score applies.

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 refreshes the AssetDatabase, with specific use cases: when files are added/updated outside Unity API and to force script recompilation on .cs changes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like assets-copy or assets-delete.

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 explicitly says when to use: for externally modified files and forced recompilation. While it does not list alternatives or exclusion scenarios, this guidance is clear and context-rich.

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