refresh_docs

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

Annotations indicate non-readOnly, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description fails to explain what 'refresh' entails—whether it reprocesses all documents, deletes cache, or affects user queries. For a mutation without idempotency, the agent needs to know if repeated calls cause errors or performance degradation.

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 extremely short at six words, which aids quick scanning. However, it is under-specified—every sentence should earn its place, but here the brevity sacrifices clarity. A slight expansion to 1-2 sentences would maintain conciseness while improving value.

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 the output schema exists, return values need not be explained, but the tool has moderate complexity (rebuild operation without idempotency) and siblings like get_status for index state. The description is incomplete—it fails to specify the effect on existing index data, whether the operation is synchronous or async, and what happens to in-flight queries.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter (force), the description omits all parameter meaning. A description like 'force boolean: if true, bypass incremental refresh and do a full rebuild' would add significant value, but currently the agent must infer meaning from the name alone.

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 specific actions (refresh, rebuild) and a resource (source docs, index), establishing a clear purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_status, which might also involve index state, missing a chance to clarify the tool's distinct role.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a simple refresh is appropriate versus when to rebuild from scratch. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring recent document changes) or potential side effects, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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