refresh_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must explain behavioral traits. 'Rebuild' implies a non-incremental, potentially destructive operation, but the description does not disclose what happens to existing data, whether manual changes are overwritten, or if network access is required. The vague 'source data' leaves side effects unclear.

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 extremely economical: two short sentences that state the action and provide timing. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition.

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 with one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the primary purpose and usage timing. However, it lacks key context about the force_download parameter and potential side effects, making it adequate but incomplete.

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 has zero descriptions for force_download, and the description does not mention this parameter at all. The agent gets no guidance on when to set force_download to true versus relying on the default false. The name is self-descriptive but does not clarify the consequences or scenarios for using it.

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 ('Rebuild') and the resource ('the player board') from a defined source ('source data'). This distinguishes it from incremental operations like sync_draft, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides explicit timing guidance: 'Run once before draft day.' This tells the agent when to invoke it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare it to sibling tools like prewarm or sync_draft.

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