Hent tabellkatalogen på nytt

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 the full-catalog download, index rebuild, approximate duration, and the weekly automatic trigger. It does not mention potential side effects such as index availability during rebuild, but it is far more transparent than a minimal one-word description.

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 two concise sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the additional timing/automation context placed after. No word is wasted.

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 operation with no output schema, this description is complete enough: it says what happens, how long it takes, and that it is normally handled automatically. An agent can decide to invoke it based on this information.

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, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. Per the baseline for an empty parameter set, a score of 4 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 action ('Laster ned hele SSBs tabellkatalog og bygger indeksen om') with a clear resource and scope. It is distinct from sibling tools like search, table, data, latest, and status, leaving no ambiguity about what sync does.

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?

It implicitly communicates when manual use is needed by noting that a systemd timer runs the same task weekly. This gives useful context about the tool's role, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this only when you need immediate freshness'.

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