ariadne

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does so effectively. It discloses key behavioral traits: re-scans every repo from config, rebuilds embeddings if nodes changed, invalidates cached DB handles, and emphasizes it's zero-configuration with no arguments. However, it doesn't mention potential performance impact or error handling.

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?

Perfectly front-loaded with purpose in first sentence, followed by usage guidelines and implementation details. Every sentence earns its place: first states what it does, second when to use it, third how it works, fourth confirms parameterless nature. Zero wasted words.

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 tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains purpose, triggers, behavior, and parameter requirements. The only minor gap is lack of information about return values or potential errors, but given the simplicity of the tool, this is acceptable.

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% with 0 parameters, so baseline would be 3. The description adds significant value by explicitly stating 'No arguments; zero configuration' and explaining what triggers the refresh (stale_warning or known code changes), which provides crucial context beyond the empty schema.

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 specific action ('Refresh the Ariadne index') and resource ('from inside the conversation'), distinguishing it from siblings like query_chains or expand_node by focusing on index maintenance rather than querying or expansion operations.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Call this when query_chains or expand_node returned a `stale_warning`, or after you know the user's code has changed.' It names specific sibling tools and provides clear alternative scenarios, with no misleading guidance.

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