refresh_doc_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the action ('Re-index') and benefit ('pick up new/changed docs') but does not disclose potential side effects (like whether absent docs are removed), requirements (source existence), or whether this is a destructive operation. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action and benefit. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate: it names the action, source of truth, and expected outcome. However, with no annotations or output schema, it lacks details on failure modes, idempotency, and whether the refresh is incremental or full. Given the low complexity, this is acceptable but not outstanding.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter 'name' described as 'Source name to refresh', which aligns with the tool's description. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 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 'Re-index' with a clear resource 'a source from its llms.txt', and the parenthetical 'pick up new/changed docs' further clarifies the exact purpose. This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like add_doc_source, remove_doc_source, and search_docs.

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 implies when to use the tool (when new or changed docs need to be picked up from a source's llms.txt) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., re-adding the source). Usage context is clear but exclusionary guidance is missing.

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