provider_refresh

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, meaning this is a safe operation with no side effects visible to the caller. The description adds 'refresh one provider model catalog and explicit reasoning metadata' but doesn't explain what refreshing does, whether it mutates cached data, or what triggers it. With annotations already covering safety, the description adds little beyond a restatement of intent.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler, front-loading the action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though the phrase 'explicit reasoning metadata' could be seen as slightly opaque.

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?

The tool lacks an output schema and annotations only cover safety, so the description must carry more weight. It fails to explain what a refresh entails, whether it returns anything, how id is used, or how it differs from provider_probe and provider_model_override. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the single string parameter 'id' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description doesn't clarify what the id refers to (provider id, catalog id?) or its format. However, with only one parameter, the baseline of 3 for zero-param tools does not apply; the gap is mild but present.

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 states a verb+resource ('Refresh... provider model catalog and explicit reasoning metadata'), which is clearer than the bare name. However, it doesn't distinguish this from siblings like provider_probe or provider_model_override, leaving the agent to guess the boundary. The phrase 'explicit reasoning metadata' is jargon that doesn't clarify the operation.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description doesn't say when to refresh versus probe, save, or override, nor does it state prerequisites or expected outcomes. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and siblings.

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