refresh_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary side effect (clearing the cached AST) and the consequence (full re-parse on next call). However, it does not mention whether this operation is reversible, requires special permissions, or returns any confirmation/error. It also leaves unclear whether the cache is in-memory or on disk. Adequate but with gaps.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and then the usage context. Every word earns its place. No redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema). The description covers the purpose and when to use it. It doesn't describe return values, but for a cache-clear operation it's reasonable to expect no meaningful return. Could be more complete with error conditions or behavior on invalid project roots, but the schema already constrains the parameter. Overall quite complete for a straightforward refresh tool.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the schema already describes project_root as 'Absolute path to the TypeScript project root (must contain tsconfig.json)'. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 action: 'Clears the cached AST for a project root, forcing a full re-parse on the next call.' It specifies the verb ('clears'), the resource ('cached AST for a project root'), and the effect ('forcing a full re-parse'). This distinguishes it from the sibling analysis tools, which focus on inspecting or computing rather than mutating cache state.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'Use after switching branches, running git pull, or adding/removing files.' This gives clear operational context. It does not explicitly call out alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling tool names and the state-changing nature imply this is a maintenance/refresh tool rather than an analysis tool.

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