diagnostic_refresh

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

Annotations indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description confirms this: 'this is a mutation tool because it refreshes Reef state.' It also adds context about file-mode skipping and persistence, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the action. It wastes no words but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating conditions). Still effective.

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 complexity (9 parameters, nested objects) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key condition (file-mode skipping). However, it lacks details about output format or parameter usage, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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 and 9 parameters, the description provides no explanation for parameters like projectId, maxFindings, or tsconfigPath. It only references 'sources' and 'files' briefly. This is insufficient for an agent to understand parameter roles.

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 tool's purpose: it invokes selected diagnostic sources and persists findings, returning a summary. It lists the exact sources (lint_files, programmatic_findings, etc.) and distinguishes itself from individual diagnostic tools by being an aggregation runner. This is specific and actionable.

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 implicitly says when to use this tool (for refreshing multiple diagnostic sources) but does not explicitly guide when not to use it or suggest alternatives like single-source tools. The note about file-mode sources is useful but incomplete.

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