refresh_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses cache bypass and the scope of refresh (one vs all 3653 services). It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a simple forced fetch, the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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 sentence states the action and key behavior (cache bypass). Second provides usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and parameter behavior. Could mention expected output format or that subsequent status checks reflect the update, but not essential.

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% for the single parameter. Description adds value by providing an example ('github') and stating the default behavior (refreshes all 3653 services if omitted), which enhances understanding beyond the schema's 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?

Description explicitly states verb 'refresh' and resource 'services', and specifies action: 'Force a fresh live fetch for one or all services, bypassing the 60-second cache.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_status (which likely uses cache) and check_multiple.

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?

Description provides context: 'Use this when you need the absolute latest status — e.g. during an active incident or immediately after a known outage ends.' This implies when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools for normal cached reads.

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