refresh

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

Annotations cover the important safety flags—idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false—but the description adds the crucial operational fact that only tallybook's own database is written. It also names the four outcome categories, which is more than the annotations provide. It doesn't describe rate limits, error modes, or how long the rescan takes.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the imperative action, then the returned tallies and the write guarantee. No wasted words—every clause 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?

For a zero-parameter, side-effecting tool with an output schema, the description plus annotations supply what an agent needs to invoke it safely and know what it will write. The main gap is not explaining what 'transcript directories' are or what prompts a rescan, but that may be out of scope for a trigger tool.

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 accepts zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description correctly and consistently indicates no configuration.

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 states a specific action (rescan transcript directories) and explains what it produces (counts of scanned, recorded, unchanged, skipped files). Its namesake siblings—agents, changes, sessions—don't overlap; refresh is set apart as the operational path that bypasses the auto-rescan.

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 clearly implies 'use this when you want the rescan to happen now rather than later', but no explicit when-not or alternative tool is named. There's no sibling that acts as the manual alternative, so the omission is minor.

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