refresh_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects, asynchrony, and safety. 'Trigger' hints at an asynchronous action, but the description does not say whether the call blocks, how long it may take, whether it affects in-flight asset processing, or what the response looks like. The behavioral profile is largely absent.

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 one short sentence with no filler and a clear front-loaded action verb. It is appropriately concise for a tool with one optional parameter, though it sacrifices informative content for brevity, preventing a perfect score.

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 tool with no annotations and one optional parameter, the description is too thin: it omits the meaning of null project_path, whether the operation is asynchronous, how to observe completion (notably via wait_for_assets), and any side effects. The output schema exists, but the description does not hint at what is returned, leaving an agent with significant gaps.

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 parameter, project_path, has no schema description (0% coverage), and the description never explains what it represents or what passing null means. The phrase 'for a project' vaguely implies a relationship but does not clarify valid values, defaults, or behavior when omitted. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Trigger') and a specific resource ('Asset Processor rescan' for a project), making the core action clear. It is semantically distinct from siblings like get_asset_processor_status or wait_for_assets, but does not explicitly name an alternative or differentiate itself, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_asset_processor_status or wait_for_assets. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an open project), conditions that call for a rescan, or what to do after triggering. This is effectively no usage guidance.

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