refresh_index

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the main mutation (re-crawling sites to refresh the index) and the cache-bypassing effect of 'force=true', which is valuable. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, expected duration, permission requirements, or what happens to the index during a refresh, leaving important behavioral context absent.

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 consists of two concise sentences, with the primary action front-loaded in the first sentence and a conditional usage tip in the second. It contains no filler or redundant content. Every sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool.

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 optional-parameter tool, the description provides the core operation and the cache-bypass behavior, and the schema fills in parameter details. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description omits what the tool returns, whether special permissions are needed, and any caveats about long-running re-crawls. This leaves a moderate gap in operational context for an agent.

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 documents both parameters completely, including defaults and the platform enum, so schema coverage is 100%. The description's 'force=true to bypass cache' simply restates the schema's 'Force refresh even if cache is fresh' without adding new meaning. A baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Refresh'), a clear resource ('documentation search index'), and the method ('by re-crawling documentation sites'). This clearly differentiates it from read-only siblings like search_docs, fetch_page, and list_sections. There is no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 implies the tool is used when the search index is stale and needs rebuilding, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. It also offers no guidance on choosing the 'platform' parameter values, aside from what the schema already provides. The 'force=true' advice is parameter-level rather than tool-level usage guidance.

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