Refresh Project Cache

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

There are no behavioral annotations beyond the title, so the description carries the full burden. It merely says 'refresh project cache,' which is vague about side effects, whether it writes to disk, whether it requires an open project, or whether it is safe/idempotent. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place, and the key trigger condition is included immediately after the main action.

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 with a single optional parameter and an output schema, so the interface is mostly self-contained. However, the effects of 'refreshing' are unexplained, and without annotations the agent gets no safety or side-effect context. It is minimally viable but leaves behavior to inference.

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 project_path described as 'Path to project' and defaulting to null. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, but the schema already sufficiently documents the only parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('refresh') and resource ('project cache'), and adds a clear trigger condition ('after file changes'). This distinguishes it from the long sibling list, where no other tool claims to refresh the project cache.

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 phrase 'after file changes' provides a clear context for when the tool should be used. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it stops just short of full guidance.

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