refresh_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It does explain that the tool re-reads from the database into a local cache, which is useful. However, it omits details like permission requirements, potential performance cost, or what happens if the database is unreachable – notable for a refresh operation.

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 filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, and the trigger conditions are given concisely. 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?

For a simple refresh utility with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it says what is reloaded, where it is loaded, and when to run it. The low complexity means nothing essential is missing.

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 0%, and the description never mentions the 'connection' parameter. The parameter name and default value are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds zero value on parameter semantics and does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('re-read') and a precise resource (tables, views, columns, keys, indexes, foreign keys) with a clear destination (local cache). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables, describe_table, or search_schema, which operate on the cached state rather than refreshing it.

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?

It gives explicit triggers: run when a table or column seems to be missing, or after the database changed. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when refresh_schema is the right choice versus the lookup siblings.

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