refresh_docs

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations don't: the seven-day cache is bypassed and the operation is a no-op under a specific configuration, which is exactly the kind of idempotency detail an agent needs.

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, zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the caveat follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present and no parameters, the description needn't explain return values. It covers the action and its main caveat; the only minor gap is no explicit trigger for when a refresh is warranted.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Re-fetch the documentation corpus,' which is clearly distinct from the read-oriented siblings (list_docs, get_doc, search_docs). It does not explicitly name or differentiate from any sibling, but the refresh action is unambiguous.

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?

Provides a genuine when-not condition: the call is a no-op when LASER_DOCS_FILE points at a local llms-full.txt. This helps an agent decide whether calling is worthwhile, though no alternative tool is named for the stale-cache scenario.

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