unity_refreshReconnects to the Tuanjie editor by re-reading the codely configuration, updating the Bridge port, and verifying the project root to restore a valid session.
Re-reads .com-unity-codely.json, reconnects to the current dynamic Bridge port, and verifies the project root.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds concrete behavior by naming the exact config file re-read, the reconnect to the dynamic port, and the project-root verification. No contradiction with annotations.
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 front-loaded sentence lists the full sequence of actions with no filler. Every clause earns its place.
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?
For a zero-parameter, idempotent refresh operation with rich annotations, the description covers the essential behaviors: config re-read, reconnect, and verification. A minor gap is not stating what happens if the config file or project root is missing, but this is low complexity.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
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 resource (.com-unity-codely.json), a clear action (re-reads and reconnects to the Bridge port), and a verification step. This is enough to distinguish unity_refresh from siblings like tuanjie_bridge_status or unity_editor.
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 explains the mechanics but gives no explicit guidance on when to call it versus alternatives such as tuanjie_bridge_status or tuanjie_start. There is no mention of prerequisites or situations where refresh is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.