Sync new Google data for Fitbit Air; analysis runs after sync. Takes a few minutes.
Sync new data from Google now (then analysis runs). Takes up to a few minutes.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "refresh_data"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description usefully adds that this triggers a sync plus a downstream analysis and can take up to a few minutes. However it doesn't say whether repeat calls are rate-limited, whether it blocks, or what the side effects on existing data are.
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?
One short sentence front-loads the action, and the parenthetical adds the crucial consequence and latency without waste. Every clause 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?
With zero parameters and no output schema, the description only needs to convey behavior, and it covers the action, its downstream effect, and duration. It could say more about whether the sync is idempotent or how long results stay fresh.
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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate on the input side.
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 (Sync) and resource (new data from Google) with the follow-on effect (analysis runs). It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling data_status, which an agent might otherwise confuse it with.
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 phrase 'now' implies you call this when you want fresh data, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus data_status or query_sql, and no exclusion or prerequisite guidance. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.