refresh_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions scraping (external network access), saving to a live store without modifying the frozen snapshot, and the speed/comprehensiveness tradeoff of top_n. These are key behavioral traits for a refresh tool. It does not mention potential rate limits or error conditions, but the core side effects are well disclosed.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the main action and target, the second explains side effects and subsequent usage with siblings, and the third defines the parameter. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids redundant phrasing. Slightly longer than strictly necessary but still efficient.

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 refresh tool with one parameter, the description covers the main action, side effects (snapshot untouched), how to use the resulting data with siblings, and the parameter semantics. An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. It does not mention error handling or network prerequisites, but these are minor for this tool's scope.

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%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does: 'top_n は HN topstories の取得上限（多いほど網羅的だが遅い）' explains that top_n is the upper limit for HN topstories, with more being comprehensive but slower. This adds meaningful meaning beyond the bare integer type and default value in the schema.

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 the action (fetch HN×ArXiv and save to a separate live store), the resource (HN×ArXiv data), and the side effect (scraping). It distinguishes itself from the sibling query tools (get_schema, run_sql, search_text) by describing the refresh/scrape operation rather than a read-only query, so an agent can easily tell them apart.

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 concrete usage context: after running this tool, use live=True with get_schema/run_sql/search_text to search the latest data. This implies the tool should be used when fresh data is needed, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if the frozen snapshot is sufficient) or name alternatives directly. The guidance is clear but could be more explicit about exclusions.

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