refresh_sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool ingests unseen articles and returns only counts and metadata, not bodies. However, it does not explain side effects like whether ingestion creates permanent records, whether duplicates are handled, or whether any authentication or rate-limit considerations apply.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and follows with the output boundary, which is exactly the information an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 an output schema present, the description is largely complete: it says what action is taken, what is returned, and what is not returned. The main gaps are behavioral details around side effects and explicit when-to-use guidance, but these are relatively minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are largely non-applicable; the baseline of 4 applies. The only implied input is the global state of 'enabled RSS sources', which does not require parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Refresh'), a precise resource ('enabled RSS sources'), and the intended outcome ('ingest unseen articles'). It also clarifies the output scope by saying it returns counts and article metadata, not bodies, which distinguishes it from content-search or article-management siblings.

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 intended use case is implied: call this when you want to pull in new articles from enabled RSS sources. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like manage_source or add_article.

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