codapult_guard_analyzeRefresh persisted project facts and snapshots to update guardrail state without altering architecture rules, contracts, or baseline; confirmation is required before saving changes.
Refresh persisted project facts and snapshots without changing rules, contracts, or baseline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | No | Project path or workspace root. | |
| confirm | No | Required before writing refreshed Guard state. | |
| no_wait | No | ||
| wait_ms | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does usefully signal that this writes persisted state while preserving rules and baseline, and the schema's confirm field implies a write gate, but the description never mentions that confirm requirement, what happens on a dry run, or what 'refreshed Guard state' actually contains.
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?
A single tightly written sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded and no filler. Every clause (refresh, persisted facts, no rule/contract/baseline change) carries distinct information.
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?
This is a state-mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and half its parameters undocumented. The description omits the confirm-before-write flow, what the refresh result looks like, and whether the operation is reversible or incremental, leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation mutation tool.
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 only 50%: root and confirm are documented in the schema, while no_wait and wait_ms have no descriptions anywhere. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, so the two undocumented timing parameters remain opaque to the agent.
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 (refresh) and resource (persisted project facts and snapshots) and clarifies the scope boundary by excluding rules, contracts, and baseline changes. That exclusion implicitly separates it from sibling mutation tools like codapult_guard_propose and codapult_guard_init, though it never names any of them.
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 conveys the negative case (it does not modify rules, contracts, or baseline) but never states the positive trigger, such as 'use when Guard state is stale or after external changes.' With 13 sibling tools, an agent has no explicit routing cue to prefer this over codapult_guard_check, codapult_guard_verify, or codapult_guard_context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.