wallabag_reload_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Ask wallabag to refetch/reparse' hints at a server-side action that may be asynchronous, but it never says whether existing content or user edits are overwritten, whether it needs the entry to be reachable online, or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition of the tool name. It is efficient, though it is so terse that it omits information an agent would benefit from.

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?

With one fully documented parameter and an output schema covering return values, the core call mechanics are complete. What is missing is the action's side effects and its placement among the archive/update/edit siblings.

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 100%, with entry_id already documented as 'wallabag entry/article id'. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('refetch/reparse') and resource ('the original article URL'), so an agent knows this triggers a content refresh rather than a read or metadata edit. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_entry or update_entry, but the action is distinct enough to be inferred.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_entry for reading, update_entry for manual edits), nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is only implied by the word 'reload'.

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