refresh_tree_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Force refresh' implies cache invalidation or replacement, but it does not state whether the operation is safe (e.g., read-only vs. destructive), whether it may require network resources, or what happens to the existing cache beyond 'refreshing.' The description fails to disclose these potential side effects, leaving the agent to infer the impact.

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. The first states what the tool does, and the second states when to use it. No redundant information or fluff, entirely front-loaded and purposeful.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states purpose and usage condition, and the schema covers parameters. However, the lack of behavioral transparency (side effects, safety profile) leaves a notable gap in completeness, especially given the absence of annotations.

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 schema description provides 100% coverage for the single 'version' parameter, explaining it is optional and defaults to all versions. The description itself adds no additional parameter context, but the schema is sufficient, so the baseline 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 clearly states 'Force refresh the passive skill tree data cache' with a specific verb ('refresh') and resource ('passive skill tree data cache'). It distinguishes from all sibling tools, none of which perform cache refresh operations. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 a clear trigger condition: 'Use this if tree data seems outdated.' This is explicit guidance on when to use the tool. It does not name alternatives, but since no sibling tool offers the same function, explicit exclusions are unnecessary. The guidance is sufficient for selecting this tool.

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