refresh_tools

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

The description does not have annotations to fall back on, and it provides some behavioral context by positioning the tool as a proper cache-refresh mechanism rather than raw HTTP. However, it does not disclose side effects like whether the refresh is destructive, idempotent, or has network implications. Without annotations, this is a moderate gap.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and object, and includes the key usage context and alternative without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (zero params, an output schema, and a simple cache-refresh function), the description is fully complete. It covers the purpose, the condition for calling, and the preferred alternative, while the output schema handles return-value documentation.

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, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, 0 parameters receives a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics. It adds no parameter details, but none are needed.

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 client's cached tool list, with a specific trigger scenario ('after a server restart or upgrade'). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from the turbosign_* sibling tools, which are all domain operations.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('after a server restart or upgrade') and names a clear alternative to avoid ('instead of falling back to raw HTTP requests'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, which would make it a 5.

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