refresh_decision_pack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses the key side effect that it writes local files, plus that it does not mutate server decisions. It also lists return fields, though it does not cover overwrite semantics or error behavior in detail.

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 front-loaded with the action, then side effects and return values, then usage condition. Every sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary repetition.

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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough to call correctly. It explains the local write behavior, expected return fields, and the condition for use.

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 description explicitly states that it takes no input. This matches the empty schema and avoids ambiguity, fitting the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 names a specific action and resource: downloading the compiled decision pack and rewriting the generated local decision-pack skill. It is clear enough to distinguish from a pure decision check, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as sync_skills.

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 gives a clear invocation condition: call when decisions may have changed and the local skill is stale. It also clarifies that it does not change server-side decisions and takes no input, though it does not name alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use cases.

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