mimry_refresh

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says it re-runs indexes but not whether this is destructive to existing state, how expensive/long it takes, whether it can run while other queries are active, or whether it requires a root to be initialized. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the operational traits are not.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the ordered sequence, so there is no waste. However it is terse to the point of under-specification for a multi-step operation, which is a different failure than verbosity.

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 a mutation-style composite with no annotations and a completely undocumented parameter, the description leaves too much open. The output schema covers results, but the agent still lacks the when/why and the meaning of root needed to invoke this confidently.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'root' is undocumented in both schema and description. An agent cannot tell whether root is a path, a project identifier, or what the default (null) resolves to, even though the default hints it is optional.

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 composite operation and enumerates its three phases ('index, semantic index, then status'), which lets an agent distinguish it from the single-purpose siblings mimry_reindex and mimry_status. The only weakness is that 'MIMRY index' is internal jargon that isn't defined, but the verb+sequence is otherwise concrete.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this composite over calling mimry_reindex / mimry_semantic / mimry_status individually, nor any note about prerequisites (e.g. whether mimry_init must run first). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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