Refresh Swagger Cache

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

Annotations already cover idempotence, non-destructiveness, and non-read-only. The description adds context about force-refetch semantics (ignoring cache), that it updates the cache, and the return shape (success/failure and interface counts). This goes beyond annotations, though it doesn't disclose every possible side effect.

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 compact and well-structured: it starts with the core action, then provides a usage hint, parameter explanation, and return summary. Every sentence contributes value without 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?

Given the tool's simple signature (one optional param), full schema coverage, rich annotations, and existing output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly. It covers purpose, usage timing, parameter behavior, and return contents.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'source' parameter, and the description repeats the schema text almost exactly. No additional meaning is added; the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage applies.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Force-refetch') and resource ('Swagger documentation data'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools (list, search, get detail) by focusing on cache refresh. The action 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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('after the documentation has been updated...') but does not mention when not to use it or explicitly reference alternatives. This clear context earns a 4, lacking only the exclusion/alternative guidance for a 5.

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