refresh_skills

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

Annotations already indicate idempotence and non-destructiveness. The description adds that it refreshes cache, but doesn't elaborate on side effects or what exactly happens. With annotations covering safety, the description adds minimal extra transparency.

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 very concise at 4 words. While it could include more context (e.g., what 'repository' refers to), it is not verbose and front-loads the purpose. Slightly under-specified but not overly long.

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 no parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not mention prerequisites, error conditions, or what the refresh entails. For a cache refresh tool, more context about the repository and potential impacts would improve completeness.

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, so the description does not need to explain param meanings. The description's mention of 'skills cache' aligns with the lack of parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 clearly states the action ('Refresh') and the target ('skills cache from the repository'). It distinguishes from sibling tools which are about getting, invoking, or listing skills, not cache management.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies it is for cache refresh but lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios where it should be avoided.

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