refresh_capsule

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 discloses that this re-queries the backend and creates a new version, which implies mutation (creating a version). However, it doesn't disclose side effects beyond versioning, whether re-querying has cost/latency implications, or how the delta is formatted. The 'creates a new version' hint partially compensates for missing annotations.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loads the key behavior (return only what changed). The instruction-like phrasing is efficient. It's concise without being under-specified.

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 tool that mutates state (creates a new version), has 4 undocumented parameters, and lacks an output schema, the description is underspecified. It doesn't explain what the delta format looks like, what triggers re-querying, or whether parameters are mutually required (e.g., capsule_id vs investigation_id). Compare_capsules sibling suggests comparison could be relevant, adding ambiguity.

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 0% and all 4 parameters have empty defaults. The description adds no meaning to focus, consumer, capsule_id, or investigation_id. With 0% coverage, the description should help clarify which parameters matter for the delta behavior, but it says nothing about them.

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 tool returns a delta (only what changed since the latest version) and creates a new version by re-querying. This is a specific verb+resource (refresh capsule) with clear scope, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like compare_capsules which could be confused for diff functionality.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. get_capsule or compare_capsules. The delta behavior is described but there's no statement of when a user would need a refresh versus retrieving or comparing. With siblings like compare_capsules and get_capsule, explicit usage boundaries would help significantly.

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