刷新额度续跑状态

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'local state' context and the refresh behavior, but does not disclose whether the call may block for safetyDelaySeconds or what 'refresh' means in terms of caching or consistency.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, though it is arguably too minimal to fully inform an agent.

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 has no output schema and the description does not describe what is returned, what the effect of safetyDelaySeconds is, or when this tool should be preferred over the siblings. For a simple read-style tool this is adequate only in the narrowest sense; an agent would still lack key operational details.

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 parameter meaning, but it does not mention safetyDelaySeconds at all. The property name is somewhat self-explanatory and the schema provides type/min/max/default, but the description adds no semantic context beyond that.

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 clear action ('refresh') and a specific resource ('local quota and policy state'), going beyond the title. It is distinguishable from the sibling mutation tools (upsert/set) because it implies a read-oriented snapshot operation, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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 gives only a vague context ('for the control center') and no guidance on when to use this tool versus open_quota_resume_control_center or the quota_resumer_* mutation tools. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use reasoning.

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