okf_refresh_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the effect (updating the in-memory catalog) but does not disclose whether re-ingestion is destructive, idempotent, requires permissions, or what happens when 'bundle' is null or omitted.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and stays free of fluff. It is concise and readable, though it could afford an additional sentence to clarify parameter semantics without losing its tight structure.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a schema with zero description coverage, the description leaves important invocation details unstated, especially the meaning of the optional 'bundle' parameter and whether a null value refreshes all bundles. The agent can grasp the high-level intent but not reliably make a correct call.

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 input schema provides 0% description coverage for the single 'bundle' parameter. The description only says 'a bundle' without explaining how to identify it, what formats are accepted, or what the default of null means. This is minimal added meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('re-ingest') with a clear resource ('a bundle') and an explicit goal ('so the in-memory catalog reflects current files'). It communicates the core action clearly, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as okf_diff_tool or okf_doctor_tool.

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 phrase 'so the in-memory catalog reflects current files' implies the tool should be used when files have changed and the catalog is stale. However, it does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving the decision to inference.

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