willys_refresh_stores

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a refresh operation but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it writes to local storage, requires authentication, or makes network calls). The term 'Hämta om' implies a potentially mutating action, but there is no explanation of what happens to existing data.

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 short sentence in Swedish, which is efficient and front-loaded. It earns its place by stating the action and the resource. However, it could add a brief note about usage context without becoming verbose.

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 zero annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral context. It is too thin to be complete: it does not explain the purpose of refreshing the store registry, prerequisites, or what the user should expect after calling it. For a tool with zero parameters, a short but more informative description would be expected.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is reported as 100% (vacuously, since there are no parameters). The description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline 4 applies because there are no parameters to describe.

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 'Hämta om butiksregistret från Willys' uses the verb 'Hämta om' (refresh/fetch again) with the resource 'butiksregistret' (store registry), giving a basic sense of purpose. It distinguishes from sibling 'willys_find_stores' by indicating a refresh of the store registry rather than searching, but it does not clearly specify whether this is a full replacement or an update of cached data.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'willys_find_stores' or 'willys_get_store'. It does not state conditions such as 'use after setup' or 'when store data is stale'.

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