refresh_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool 'force' a refresh and its intended effect (up-to-date schema context), but it omits potential side effects (e.g., whether it invalidates existing cache, requires permissions, or is safe to call frequently). This is moderate transparency but lacks depth.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence and usage context in the second. There is no wasted text, redundancy, or vague phrasing. Every sentence earns its place.

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 (one parameter) and the description covers its purpose and when to use it. The parameter is documented in the schema, and the output is covered by the output schema. The only missing context is potential caveats or side effects, but for a straightforward cache-refresh operation, this is largely sufficient.

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 only parameter 'connection' is fully described in the input schema as 'Database alias,' giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add any extra semantic detail about the parameter (e.g., format or allowed values). Therefore, the baseline of 3 applies as the schema already carries the necessary meaning.

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 with a specific verb ('Force a schema cache refresh') and identifies the resource ('schema cache for a connection'). It also explains the purpose ('ensure the AI has up-to-date schema context') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables or describe_table, which merely read schema. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

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: 'Call this after CREATE TABLE, ALTER TABLE, or any DDL operation.' This gives clear context for usage. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., refresh might not be needed for read queries), so it falls slightly short of a full 5.

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