Refresh Workspace Catalog

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds value by explaining the 'refresh' behavior and the trigger events. However, it doesn't detail what the refresh entails (e.g., updating tool definitions, clearing caches) or potential side effects, leaving some ambiguity despite annotations providing baseline context.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is necessary, and there is no fluff. It efficiently conveys the purpose and trigger.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is largely complete. It clearly identifies the trigger context (consent/disconnection) and the action (refresh), which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it. Minor improvement could mention that the tool is typically used after workspace connection changes.

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 with 100% schema coverage. According to the rubric, baseline is 4 for 0 parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since none exist.

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: refreshing capability-aware tools triggered by Google consent or disconnection. It uses a specific verb (Refresh) and resource (capability-aware tools), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like connect_google_workspace and disconnect_google_workspace by specifying the trigger events.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: after Google consent or disconnection. This provides clear context, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. However, the trigger events naturally guide the agent to appropriate usage.

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