refresh_beliefs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior: marking beliefs as stale (a mutation) and identifies that it does not recompile but triggers later recompilation via 'verify_beliefs'. The side effect (status change) is clear. No contradictions.

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 concise, with a summary line and an Args section. It avoids unnecessary words. However, the first line and Args section slightly overlap in stating 'changed files'. Still, it is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, the input format, and the follow-up step. The output schema handles return value transparency, so no further explanation is needed.

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 single parameter 'changed_files' is described as 'Comma-separated list of changed file paths', which adds crucial semantic meaning beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. The description also explains how it is used ('finds related beliefs'), making the parameter's purpose very clear.

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 ('mark beliefs as stale') and resource ('beliefs'), and includes context ('after file changes') and a flow reference (Flow ④ doc-refresh). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'verify_beliefs' which is mentioned as the next step.

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 tells when to use the tool ('after file changes') and describes its role in a workflow ('so the next verify_beliefs pass...'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though the context implies it is part of a specific flow.

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