reference_refresh

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

The only behavioral detail disclosed is atomicity via the word 'atomically.' With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error behavior, but it does not. This is a significant gap for a mutation-style tool.

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 a single sentence that directly states the core action with no filler or redundant wording. It is highly concise and front-loaded with the essential information.

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?

Given the complexity of an atomic refresh operation and the absence of annotations, this minimal description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'refresh' entails, when to use it, or what the output/effects are. The existence of an output schema helps slightly but does not compensate for the lack of behavioral and usage context.

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 no parameters (empty schema), so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately does not waste space on parameter details.

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 uses the specific verb 'refresh' and clearly identifies the resource: 'project and configured user reference scopes.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like skill_refresh (skills) and reference_load (loading references), making the purpose 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when a refresh is appropriate.

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