protocol_health_refresh_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys only that the operation bypasses caching ('force', 'live', 'immediate'), but not whether it is expensive, rate-limited, long-running, async, or whether it mutates shared state across all tracked protocols.

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 short but wastes its entire budget by repeating the same sentence twice verbatim ('Force an immediate live re-score of all tracked protocols'), with no front-loaded differentiation or additional detail.

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 zero-parameter tool this is minimally adequate: the core action is stated. Still missing is what the refresh affects, whether it runs synchronously, and how results are surfaced (no output schema exists), which matters for a bulk forced re-score.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is trivially complete, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 clear verb and resource ('force an immediate live re-score of all tracked protocols'), so the basic action is understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like protocol_health_score, protocol_health_scoreboard, or protocol_health_sync_universe, leaving the agent to guess which refresh/score path applies.

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 guidance on when to invoke a forced refresh versus reading cached results via protocol_health_scoreboard, nor any precondition (e.g., rate limits, cost, or timing) for triggering a bulk live re-score. The word 'force' implies bypassing a cache but the description never says when that is appropriate.

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