run_refresh

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool triggers a refresh and can wait, but it does not disclose what happens during the wait, whether the refresh is asynchronous by default, what the output schema contains, or any side effects (e.g., whether it blocks other operations). The 'optionally wait' hint is useful but insufficient for a tool with 9 parameters and no annotation support.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and the optional wait behavior. It is appropriately concise and does not waste words, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain the refresh types, the meaning of waiting, the timeout behavior, or the authentication parameters. An agent would likely need to inspect the schema and possibly external documentation to use this tool correctly. The output schema exists, so return values are not the main gap, but the behavioral and parameter context 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%, so the description must compensate for the 9 parameters. It does not explain the meaning of key parameters like 'wait', 'refresh_type', 'timeout_s', or the auth-related fields. The description only mentions 'optionally wait', which maps to the 'wait' parameter, but leaves the rest unexplained. This is a significant gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 'Trigger and optionally wait for a dataset refresh' clearly identifies the action (trigger) and the resource (dataset refresh), and the 'optionally wait' clause distinguishes it from a simple fire-and-forget trigger. It is concise and understandable, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools; however, the verb 'run_refresh' and the resource 'dataset refresh' are specific enough to avoid confusion with the listed siblings.

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 description implies usage: trigger a refresh and optionally wait for completion. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Given the sibling list includes many other operations, some guidance on when a refresh is needed would be helpful, but the description's brevity still conveys the core use case.

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