Refresh BCQuality clone

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, idempotent, and not destructive. Description adds specific behavioral details (git pull, in-memory index rebuild) that go beyond annotations, avoiding contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences: first explains action, second provides usage context. No waste, front-loaded with key behavior.

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 zero parameters and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, action, and usage timing. It is complete for a simple refresh tool.

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?

No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so description naturally adds no parameter info. Baseline is 4; description provides usage context instead.

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 runs `git pull` on the active clone and rebuilds the in-memory index. It distinguishes from siblings which are mostly read-only queries (e.g., bcquality_get_knowledge, bcquality_list_domains).

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?

Explicitly says 'Use after publishing new knowledge to your fork,' providing a clear context. Does not list exclusions or alternatives, but the when-to-use guidance is straightforward and sufficient.

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