refresh_hw_device

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavior (re-reading JTAG chain state) and implies dependence on a prior device selection, but says nothing about whether it alters the selection, invalidates cached device/programming state, or requires an open hw_manager session and connected hw_server.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the trigger. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is buried.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and when to invoke it. The remaining gaps — prerequisites such as an open hardware manager/session, and what happens if no device is selected — are minor but real for a tool that operates on implicit state.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. The phrase 'currently selected hardware device' usefully explains that the target comes from external session state rather than an argument.

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+resource ('Refresh the currently selected hardware device') and clarifies the operation with 're-reads JTAG chain state', which disambiguates it from siblings like program_device or connect_hw_server. It doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

'Call after re-plugging a cable' gives a concrete trigger condition that an agent can act on. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., don't call while a programming operation is in flight) or naming alternatives, so it is clear but not complete guidance.

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