vectis_refresh_call

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds important behavioral context that it 'Never submits another paid run'—a significant billing-related guarantee. 'Poll ... once' and the pending/wait instruction disclose expected polling behavior beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and each sentence adds a distinct piece of information: the operation and the safety/billing caveat plus polling behavior.

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?

For a read-only two-parameter polling tool, the description covers purpose, side-effect safety, and retry behavior. It does not specify the exact response format or how 'pending' is represented, but the description implies the response exposes status. Given the simple schema and annotations, it is largely complete.

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?

Input schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not explain the roles of missionId and requestId beyond the phrase 'saved Monid run'. The parameters remain only partially inferred from their names and regex patterns.

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?

Description opens with 'Poll a saved Monid run once', specifying a clear action and resource. 'Never submits another paid run' distinguishes it from paid submission tools like vectis_start_mission. This is a precise, differentiating statement of purpose.

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 clearly frames when to use it: polling an existing saved run, not creating a new one. It also gives explicit follow-up guidance: 'If still pending, wait before polling again.' It does not name specific sibling alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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