refresh_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It reveals two important behaviors: bypassing the cache and being a no-op under specific conditions. It stops short of noting potential side effects like network latency or failure modes, but for a cache refresh this is adequate.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the primary function, the second clarifies an important conditional exception. No redundancy or extraneous detail.

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 parameterless operation with an output schema present, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and the local-checkout caveat. The agent has everything required to decide whether to invoke it.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because none exist; nothing further is needed.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb ('Re-fetch') and resource ('documentation corpus'), and explains the key behavior ('bypassing the seven-day cache'). This distinguishes it from sibling read-only tools like list_docs or get_doc, which operate on the current corpus.

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 describes when to use the tool (when a cached remote copy needs refreshing) and when not to use it (when IGGY_DOCS_ROOT points to a local checkout), and names the alternative action ('run git pull there instead'). This is strong practical guidance.

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