openlex__zhlaw_update_cache

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

Beyond annotations (idempotent, not destructive), the description adds key behaviors: downloads ~970 laws from HuggingFace, takes ~25s first run, force=False skips if cache fresh returning 'cache_fresh', force=True forces download, requires internet. This fully informs the agent of side effects and state outcomes.

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 well-structured: short introductory sentence, then use_case, important_notes (with timings and behavior), and a clear example. Every sentence serves a purpose, and it's front-loaded with the core action.

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 simple one-parameter update action, the description covers usage, behavior, and output snippet. An output schema exists, so detailed return structure is not needed. Minor gap: no mention of error handling or internet failure, but still complete enough for typical 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 single boolean parameter 'force' is described in the schema as 'Cache auch wenn aktuell (<24h) erzwingen.' The tool description adds explicit return value behavior (status='cache_fresh' when skipped) and the time context. This adds meaningful nuance beyond the schema's brief description.

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 it updates the local cache of Zurich law data. The use_case explicitly tells when to call: when search results seem outdated or cache needs reloading. Sibling tools are all query tools, so this stands out as a cache management action.

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 provides explicit context: cache auto-refreshes every 24h, manual update rarely needed, and condition for calling (outdated results). However, it does not name specific alternative tools for when the cache should not be called, though siblings are clearly different in purpose.

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