Re-extrair fontes

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

Annotations already indicate it's a non-read, idempotent operation. The description adds the cache TTL bypass and the 'updates all' default behavior, providing useful context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word adds value, and it avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage, and key behavioral aspects (TTL, default scope). It could mention outcome details, but given the simplicity, it's sufficiently complete.

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 schema description already explains the 'domain' parameter with 100% coverage, and the tool description reinforces it with the same idea. The description adds little beyond naming the parameter as a domain id and noting that omission updates all, which is already in 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 clearly states the tool forces re-extraction of public sources, bypassing the 72h cache TTL. This is a specific action distinct from sibling tools like get_item or search, and explicitly mentions 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 provides clear when-to-use guidance ('Use quando suspeitar de dados desatualizados') and explains behavior with and without the domain parameter. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but that's not essential for a refresh operation.

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