Reload previously confirmed tables into a restarted CAS session using the same filters and columns, or use forget to stop offering them.
Load the tables again that were loaded into the CAS session before it restarted (same where / columns;
they were confirmed then). forget: don't reload, just stop offering it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| forget | No | ||
| connection | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive mutation. The description adds that the reload preserves the previous where/columns and that ``forget`` stops offering the reload without performing it, but it does not explain whether data is re-read from source, permission requirements, or failure behavior.
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 short and front-loads the core scenario before explaining the optional forget behavior. There is minor awkwardness in phrasing and the double-backtick formatting, but no wasted sentences.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the reload scenario and the ``forget`` option but omits guidance on the ``connection`` argument and operational expectations such as permissions or source re-read behavior. It is adequate but not fully complete.
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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains ``forget`` meaningfully, but the ``connection`` parameter is not addressed at all, leaving a significant invocation detail undocumented.
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 states a specific action, reloading previously loaded CAS tables after a session restart, which is more specific than a generic load operation. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from sibling tools like cas_load_table or cas_session_loads, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
Usage is implied by the restart scenario: use this tool to restore tables that were loaded before the restart. The ``forget`` clause gives a conditional behavior, but the description does not say when to use cas_load_table instead or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.