skill_refresh

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

The description discloses atomicity ('atomically') and scope ('project and configured user skill roots'), adding value beyond a bare 'refresh'. However, it does not mention side effects, potential destructiveness, permissions, or other behavioral traits, and no annotations are present to cover these gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or 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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core action and atomicity. It lacks usage context and side-effect disclosure, but given the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

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, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter details, but with no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('refresh') and resource ('project and configured user skill roots'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that list, find, or read skills. However, the exact meaning of 'refresh' could be more explicit (e.g., reload from disk), so it's clear but not perfectly precise.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or what preconditions might exist (e.g., after modifying skill files). The description only states what the tool does, not when to invoke it.

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