db_reef_refresh

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

Annotations indicate read/write and non-idempotent behavior. The description confirms mutation by stating 'replace indexed Reef facts'. It also discloses dependency on existing snapshot. However, it could be more explicit about failure modes if snapshot is missing.

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 sentences, no unnecessary words. First sentence delivers the core purpose, second provides critical prerequisite. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

While the output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description lacks parameter coverage. For a 6-parameter tool, the description should detail at least the key parameters to be complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only mentions a few aspects (snapshot, facts) and does not explain any of the 6 parameters (freshen, projectId, factsLimit, etc.). Users cannot infer parameter meanings from the description.

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 clearly states the verb (replace/index) and resource (Reef facts), listing many specific components. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like project_index_refresh by explicitly mentioning it uses an existing snapshot and that the sibling should be run first if stale.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (for ingestion after snapshot is ready) and when to use the alternative (run project_index_refresh first if stale). This provides clear context for choosing among siblings.

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