refresh_all_services

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at network activity ('the only bulk network operation') but says nothing about permission requirements, rate limits, latency/cost of a bulk call, failure semantics, or whether refreshing is idempotent or mutates remote state.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. The second sentence adds a distinguishing trait but is terse enough that nothing is wasted.

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-parameter refresh tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does but omits behavioral specifics an agent would want before triggering a bulk network operation, especially given the absence of annotations.

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?

Only one parameter (workspace) exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains it. The description adds no meaning about the workspace parameter, which is the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 states a specific verb ('refresh') and scope ('every configured service'), which distinguishes it from the singular sibling refresh_service by scope. However, it never names refresh_service explicitly, so the differentiation is by implication rather than direct routing.

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 implied: refresh all services in one call rather than individually. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over calling refresh_service repeatedly, no prerequisites, and no when-not guidance.

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