gateway.refresh

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that refreshing may be refused while pending requests exist and that force=true can cancel them. This gives important behavioral insight beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences with no waste: first states core purpose, second adds usage guidance and behavioral nuance. 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?

No output schema exists, so description should explain what happens after refresh (e.g., reconnection status, success indication). It does not cover this, leaving the agent uncertain about results. For a moderately complex tool, this is a gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description only adds context for the force parameter (cancel pending requests), but doesn't enhance reason or source beyond the schema. Baseline score is appropriate.

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 it 'Reload backend MCP server configurations and reconnect.' This is a specific verb+resource action that distinguishes from sibling tools like gateway.restart_server and gateway.config_status.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when new MCP servers have been configured or to recover from connection errors,' and provides conditional behavior about refusing while downstream requests are pending. Does not mention alternative tools but gives clear when-to-use context.

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