gateway.refresh

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 reveals an important behavioral trait: 'Refuses by default while downstream requests are pending; set force=true to cancel them.' This adds meaningful context beyond a simple reload/reconnect statement, though it could mention additional side effects (e.g., impact on active connections).

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 primary action, and every word earns its place. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, usage context, and a key behavioral nuance (refusal/force). It lacks return-value or error details, but those are not strictly required for a tool of this simplicity and are sufficiently implied.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'force' parameter ('set force=true to cancel them') but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides for reason and source.

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 opens with 'Reload backend MCP server configurations and reconnect,' a specific verb+resource pair that clearly states what the tool does. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning the use cases: 'when new MCP servers have been configured or to recover from connection errors.'

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Use this when new MCP servers have been configured or to recover from connection errors'). However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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