refresh_connectors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a state-refreshing operation but never states whether it is safe/idempotent, whether it mutates stored state, what it costs, or what happens to tools from removed apps. For a refresh operation with zero annotation coverage this is a clear gap.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and appends the trigger in parentheses. Zero waste, nothing to trim.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and a zero-param tool has little surface to document. The trigger condition makes it usable. It nonetheless lacks any behavioral note (safety, side effects) that would fully close the loop in the absence of annotations.

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 there is nothing to document and the schema coverage of 100% is trivially satisfied. The baseline for a 0-param tool applies, and the description correctly implies the operation applies to all active connections with no scoping input.

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+resource: re-discovering the tools of all active connections. An agent can grasp the operation immediately. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling refresh_sources, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Provides an explicit trigger condition — 'después de conectar una app nueva' (after connecting a new app) — which tells the agent when this is warranted. It does not name alternatives (e.g. refresh_sources) or exclusions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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