refresh_whois_servers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the behavior (fetching from IANA, updating server list) and implies it is a safe update operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., clearing existing list), duration, or authentication needs, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Three sentences with high information density. The first sentence states the core action, the second explains the purpose, and the third provides usage guidance. No extraneous text.

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 parameters, no output schema, and a simple action, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it. However, it could mention any return value or confirmation, but lacking an output schema reduces the need.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details. It appropriately focuses on the tool's action without redundant parameter information.

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?

Clearly states the action: 'Refresh the WHOIS server dictionary by fetching the latest TLD list from IANA.' This verb-resource pairing is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_supported_tlds and whois_lookup, which have different purposes.

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?

Provides advice to 'Run this periodically to ensure the server list is up-to-date,' which suggests a maintenance use case. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. The instruction is vague and does not specify frequency or prerequisites.

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