refresh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only discloses that the tool fetches from external sources and writes to the DB. It does not say whether existing records are replaced or merged, whether stale entries are deleted, what happens if one source fails, how long collection takes, or what permissions/network access are needed for a scraping-style mutation.

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 tool purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a compact Args block; nothing is padded or repetitive. The docstring-style formatting is slightly mechanical but efficient for two parameters.

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 two-parameter mutating refresh tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the inputs but omits what a caller gets back (counts per source, per-source failures, partial success) and how the DB is affected. Those gaps matter for a scraping/DB-update operation, though the parameter coverage is decent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well for 'sources' by enumerating the accepted values (wevity, thinkgood, allcon) and explaining the omit-means-all default, which the schema does not. 'max_pages' is only glossed as maximum pages per source with no mention of the schema's default of 5 or the cost implications of raising it, leaving one parameter thin.

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 verb and resource: re-collecting listings from sources and updating the DB ('소스에서 목록을 다시 수집해 DB를 갱신한다'). It makes clear this tool is a data-refresh operation, distinct from the read-only siblings like search_contests or deadlines, though it never explicitly names a sibling or contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when the contest data needs refreshing, and the description notes that omitting 'sources' refreshes everything. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no mention of cost/duration tradeoffs, and no statement about whether a search should be run before or after refreshing.

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