refresh_crl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two most important traits: a network fetch from a remote URL and a local filesystem write to .smart-figma/crl.json. It does not cover auth requirements, overwrite semantics for an existing cache file, or failure behavior when the URL is unreachable.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the source and cache destination. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, where it fetches from, and where it writes. Only peripheral details (permissions, failure modes, whether it returns the CRL contents) are absent, which is minor at this complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the URL and its CRL_URL env-var default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's phrase 'from a remote URL' merely restates the parameter without adding syntax, format, or validation detail beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb (refresh) plus the resource (license revocation list / CRL) and even the mechanism and destination (remote URL → local cache at .smart-figma/crl.json). It does not differentiate from any sibling, though none of the listed siblings overlap in function, so the ambiguity risk is low.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'refresh' — an agent can infer you call this when the local CRL is stale or missing, but the description states no explicit trigger, no prerequisites (network access, env var configuration), and names no alternatives. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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