refresh_repo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the underlying behavior: git pull for git repos, re-copy for local dirs, and triggering re-analysis. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like merge conflicts or overwriting local changes, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 uses a clear warning banner, bullet points, and headings, presenting information in a scannable format. It is slightly repetitive with the warning, but overall every section 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?

Despite strong purpose and usage guidance, the description is incomplete for a 3-parameter tool without an output schema or annotations. It omits behavior for branch and cache_strategy, does not describe expected outcomes or errors, and lacks information on return values, making it inadequate for full autonomous invocation.

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 0%; the description only documents repo_path with examples, while branch and cache_strategy are entirely omitted. Given that the schema itself also lacks descriptions, this is insufficient for an agent to correctly set all parameters.

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 'Update a repository with latest changes' and distinguishes it from sibling operations by emphasizing 'MANUAL SYNC ONLY' and noting that cloning already provides latest code. This leaves no doubt about the tool's specific function.

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?

It explicitly says to use only when the user requests 'refresh', 'sync', or 'update', and warns against automatic/proactive use. It also notes that refresh is unnecessary after cloning. While it does not name alternative tools like start_auto_refresh, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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