refresh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the refresh is forced and immediate, not a scheduled or passive update. It does not detail side-effects like network load or rate limiting, but for a zero-parameter command this level of disclosure is generally sufficient.

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 a single, tight sentence that leads with the action and immediately states scope. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

With no parameters, an existing output schema, and no overlapping siblings, this description supplies all the context an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly. Anything more would be unnecessary for such a simple command.

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 input schema confirms zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed; baseline 4 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 states a specific verb ('Force-refresh') and resource ('all feeds'), clearly identifying a manual refresh action. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which handle feed management, search, and digests, so an agent can easily understand what this tool does.

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 context is clear: use this when you want to force an immediate refresh of all feeds. No sibling tool overlaps with this action, and no exclusion is necessary. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it or citing alternatives, but the context is unambiguous.

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