refresh_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the critical behavioral trait that this is asynchronous: it returns immediately and results must be fetched later via context_status. It does not say what exactly gets refreshed or whether repeated calls coalesce, but the async contract is the main missing piece and it is disclosed.

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 compact sentence with the trigger condition front-loaded, followed by the immediate-return behavior and the follow-up tool. Every clause carries information; there is no padding.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the definition supplies what an agent needs: when to trigger, that the call is fire-and-forget, and where to read the refreshed state. It is slightly thin on what 'local background refresh' actually updates, but that is a minor gap for a zero-argument trigger tool.

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 parameter semantics baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed and points to context_status for retrieving results, though it adds no further input detail because there is none to add.

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 action (request a local background refresh) and its trigger condition (when updates that just happened are needed). It also names the sibling tool context_status as the follow-up, so an agent can separate this from status-polling or search tools without opening a schema.

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 when to use it ('when you need just-occurred updates') and what to do next ('then query with context_status'). It does not state exclusions, e.g., that historical or already-indexed data should be read via search_context/read_record instead, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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