refresh_team_caps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the side effect (updates the cache), the read/write boundary ('Does not write to eLabFTW resources'), and that returned capability fields are sanitized for policy checks. It stops short of stating auth/permission prerequisites or failure behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then the mechanism, then the non-mutation disclaimer last. Nothing is padded, though the mechanism sentence could be slightly tighter given an output schema already exists.

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?

Zero parameters and an output schema mean the return shape needn't be re-explained, and the description still summarizes the returned sanitized team_caps object. What remains unaddressed is the relationship to the sibling capability tool and any permission requirements, but nothing essential to invoking it is missing.

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 the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to clarify argument usage, and it does not introduce any spurious parameter-like claims.

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 and resource ('Refresh and return the cached team capability flags') and adds the mechanism (fetch team record, sanitize, update cache). It is clearly distinguishable in intent from get_current_user_capabilities, but never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 'for the current session' and 'cached' implies usage when the session cache needs refreshing, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or call-out to get_current_user_capabilities as the alternative. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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