mp_fetch_ticks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Force-refresh' hints at a side effect (invalidating/refreshing local data), but it does not disclose whether authentication is required, how the refresh behaves if auth is missing, whether it makes a network request, or what happens to existing cached data.

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. Every word contributes: the action, the scope, and the data source are all present.

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, the description is mostly adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations, it should at least hint at authentication requirements or what the agent can expect after the refresh completes. The absence of any return/result information leaves a meaningful gap.

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, so the schema already fully covers invocation requirements. The description correctly adds no parameter noise, and the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 uses a specific verb ('Force-refresh') and identifies the resource ('your personal tick list from Mountain Project'). It is clear about the operation, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tool mp_list_ticks to draw a contrast, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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 word 'Force-refresh' implies this tool is for updating cached tick data, so the usage context is somewhat inferable. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over mp_list_ticks or mp_tick_stats, and no mention of prerequisites such as authentication.

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