Refresh Shop Catalog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Refresh' implies a state-changing or data-reloading operation, but it doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., cache invalidation, network fetch, UI state update), permissions/authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens to the existing catalog. The '(called from UI)' note is a weak behavioral signal that doesn't explain consequences of invocation.

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?

One concise sentence with no filler; the core action and the optional filter are front-loaded. The parenthetical adds a small amount of context without bloating the description.

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?

The tool is simple (1 optional param) and has an output schema, which reduces the need for the description to explain return values. However, the lack of annotations and behavioral transparency means an agent doesn't know what refreshing entails or whether it's safe/idempotent. For a UI-triggered refresh tool, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps about side effects and invocation context.

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?

There is only one optional parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'search' by saying it filters the catalog refresh. With a single param and no required fields, the burden is light, but the description doesn't elaborate on search behavior (e.g., partial match, case sensitivity) or what null means beyond the schema default.

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 it refreshes the merchandise catalog and mentions optional search-term filtering, distinguishing it from siblings like refresh_shop_cart and refresh_product. The '(called from UI)' note hints at its role but is ambiguous — it doesn't clarify what 'refresh' actually returns or changes.

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 UI-driven usage, which distinguishes it from product/cart refreshes, but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling names suggest related tools like list_shop_products and refresh_product, yet the description doesn't route the agent to alternatives or state conditions for choosing them.

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