jazz_reload_schema

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description explicitly says 'Drop the local Jazz runtime,' implying a destructive side effect. This directly contradicts the read-only claim, making the description misleading about the tool's actual 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action. However, the word 'drop' is unnecessarily alarming and detracts from clarity, though structurally the description is well-sized.

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's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description should clearly state the operation and side effects. The contradiction between 'drop' and readOnlyHint leaves the agent confused, and there is no mention of when this tool should be invoked, making it incomplete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description need not compensate, and the baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 clear action: drop the local Jazz runtime and reload the newest schema from the server catalogue. This distinguishes it from sibling data-access tools like jazz_query and jazz_get_row. However, the verb 'drop' introduces slight ambiguity, as it could be interpreted as terminating the runtime rather than merely refreshing it.

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 implies the tool should be used to refresh the local schema to match the newest published version, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like jazz_describe_table, nor does it mention exclusions. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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