Refresh AI Coach status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that with 'Read-only' and the idempotent-sounding 'Re-read'. It adds the dashboard scope but does not describe what the refreshed state contains or how locale affects output; the output schema carries some of that burden.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no filler or irrelevant detail. The 'Read-only' sentence is slightly redundant with annotations but does not hurt at this length.

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 read-only refresh tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential what and where. It could add a bit more by naming a sibling alternative or explaining when a refresh is needed, but nothing critical 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 100%, and the single optional locale parameter is already documented as a BCP 47 display language. The description adds nothing about parameters, but the schema already handles it, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Re-read') and resource ('AI Coach mascot state'), scopes it to the dashboard view, and explicitly labels it read-only. This clearly distinguishes it from mutation siblings like write_ai_coach_note or commit_ai_coach_care.

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 clear context: use this to re-read the mascot state for the dashboard view, and 'Read-only' signals it is a safe status refresh. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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