刷新文档缓存

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: failure retains old cache, and refreshing all cached sources excludes the default if it was never loaded. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but covers key side effects.

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 concise yet comprehensive, covering behavior, parameter handling, and failure cases without unnecessary fluff. It is well-structured with clear conditional logic.

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?

The description covers all essential aspects of the tool's operation: parameter semantics, edge cases, and failure behavior. It does not describe return values, but since no output schema is provided, this is not a significant gap. Overall, it is complete for the given 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?

The description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. It clarifies that 'source' is optional and explains the exact consequences of providing or omitting it, including the nuance about the default document not being refreshed unless previously loaded. This goes beyond the basic schema description.

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's function: forcibly reloading document sources and replacing the cache immediately. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get-spec-overview, search-apis, etc.) by focusing on cache refresh rather than retrieval or search.

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 explains when to use the tool (to refresh cache) and details the behavior of the optional 'source' parameter, including the difference between refreshing a specific source versus all cached sources. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools but implies the use case clearly.

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