refresh-application

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation ('reconcile from Git') and mentions cache invalidation with mode=hard. However, it omits key behavioral traits: whether it's destructive, idempotent, requires specific permissions, or what side effects occur.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every sentence provides information (action, mode usage, condition). No wasted words.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description does not explain what the tool returns or any error conditions. It fails to describe the 'normal' mode or the 'profile' parameter's role. Given the mutation nature and 3 parameters, more detail is needed for safe and effective use.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of mode=hard ('invalidate cache') and the environment variable guard, which are not in the schema. This supplements the parameter understanding beyond the schema alone.

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?

Description clearly states the action: 'Refresh an application (reconcile from Git)'. It differentiates from sibling 'refresh-application-cache' by mentioning mode=hard for cache invalidation. The verb 'refresh' with resource 'application' is specific and unambiguous.

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 only mentions the environment variable condition but provides no guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like sync-application or get-application-diff. It does not state when not to use it or alternatives.

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