Refresh official source cache

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable context: it explicitly states the tool refreshes from allowlisted official sources and that it does not alter FiveM projects or external services. This clarifies that the only mutation is to the local cache, providing a complete safety profile.

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, front-loads the primary action ('Explicitly refresh'), and includes only relevant information. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

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 an output schema present, the description is entirely sufficient. It covers what the tool does, the sources it uses, and its non-destructive nature. There is no additional complexity that requires further explanation.

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 there is nothing for the description to explain. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and no parameter information is needed. The description adds no parameter details, but that is appropriate given the input schema is empty.

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: explicitly refreshing the local cache from allowlisted official Cfx.re and citizenfx sources. It uses a specific verb (refresh) and identifies the resource (local cache) and the sources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like source_health or get_native. The additional clarification that it does not modify any FiveM project or external service further disambiguates its scope.

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 implies usage when a cache refresh is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as source_health, or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. No alternative tools are referenced, so guidance is limited to the implied context of manual cache refresh.

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