Refresh discovery

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, leaving the mutation profile ambiguous. The description fills that gap by stating explicitly that it never writes OpenCode configuration and never overwrites user-written catalog metadata, which tells the agent what state is and is not at risk. It stops short of saying whether the rebuilt catalog replaces cached data or whether a refresh can fail mid-way.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The positive scope (what is re-read) comes first and the safety guarantees follow, which is the right ordering for a refresh operation.

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?

For a parameterless, non-open-world tool with no output schema, the description covers what is refreshed and what is protected, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is the absence of any trigger condition or mention of what the refreshed state looks like on return.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level meaning is missing because no parameter exists.

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 verb ("Re-read") and enumerates the exact resources refreshed: OpenCode MCP configuration, tool catalog, settings, and skill index. That is far more precise than the title "Refresh discovery," though it never distinguishes this operation from the sibling systemone_get_catalog, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to use instead. The clause about not writing configuration is a scope guarantee, not usage guidance, so an agent must infer the trigger condition (e.g. after config changes) entirely on its own.

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