Refresh the quality report

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

The description discloses rate limiting behavior ('server applies an hourly refresh budget') and that Preflight QC is an optional add-on. The idempotentHint annotation is consistent with 'Re-run' implying repeatability, so no contradiction.

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 three sentences long, front-loads the main action, and has no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers the action, rate limits, and next steps. It is mostly complete, though it could mention that the tool returns a refreshed report status.

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 description does not explain the 'release_id' parameter, and the schema has 0% coverage. While the parameter's purpose may be inferred from context, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 action 'Re-run the Preflight QC automated checks and refresh the release’s quality report', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_quality_report' by indicating to use that for reading results.

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 advises to 'Read the results with get_quality_report', providing a clear usage link. It also mentions rate limits due to an hourly refresh budget, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other siblings like 'validate_release'.

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