kage_refresh

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses critical behaviors: quiet refresh on non-default branches, force flag to override, and conditions for skipping. It lacks mention of authentication or state mutation, but covers the main behavioral nuances.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second gives usage and conditional behavior. All information is essential and front-loaded.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter behavior, and branch logic. It could mention error conditions or what happens on success, but it is largely complete for decision-making.

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 50% (only force has a description). The description adds behavioral context for force but only implies project_dir's role via 'rebuild repo indexes'. It does not fully compensate for the missing schema description of project_dir.

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 the specific verb 'Rebuild' and lists exact resources: repo indexes, code graph, memory graph, metrics, and stale-memory metadata. This clearly defines the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools that are query/action focused.

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 explicitly states when to use (after meaningful changes before PR checks) and when not needed (push-only/same-tree commits). However, it does not name alternative sibling tools for comparison, which would strengthen guidance.

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