proxy_refresh

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

With no annotations, the description discloses blocking behavior and no-op condition, which are essential behavioral traits. It does not detail error handling or side effects, but for a zero-parameter tool, this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, each carrying essential information: purpose first, then behavioral notes. No wasted words, highly efficient.

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 with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior (blocks), and edge case (no-op). No gaps remain; it is fully 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?

There are no parameters, so the description need not add parameter info. The schema has 100% coverage, and the description's lack of parameter details is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool, earning a baseline of 4.

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 verb 'Re-validate' and the resource 'current proxy source', distinguishing between list and single-proxy modes. It differentiates from sibling 'proxy_status' by focusing on the action of refreshing rather than checking status.

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 provides key usage context: blocking behavior and no-op for single-proxy mode. It implies when not to use (single-proxy), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to prefer this over sibling tools.

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