capabilities_refresh

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful nuance that this re-populates the agent's dynamic tool list rather than reader state, but does not say whether the refreshed tool set replaces the current one or how failures surface.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the discovery purpose. The semicolon-joined second clause is slightly redundant with the first but still earns its place by naming the concrete effect on tool discovery.

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 and no output schema, there is little else the description must cover. It adequately conveys the action and its effect on tool availability, though it could note whether the refresh is awaited or how results are surfaced.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly implies no arguments are needed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: discover all APIs and operations exposed by the viewer, and refresh dynamic MCP tool discovery. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling viewer_api_inspect.

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?

'Refresh' implies the situation (after the viewer's capabilities change), but the description never says when to call this versus viewer_api_inspect or other discovery/inspection siblings, nor whether it should be run proactively. Usage is only inferable.

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