Refresh Catalog

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description reveals that the tool re-reads the Manager's API description and rebuilds the catalog from it, and explains when that is needed. No statement contradicts the annotations; rebuild appears to refer to refreshing local catalog state, not an external destructive write.

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 tight sentences front-load the action and then give the concrete maintenance use cases. There is no repetition of the tool name or filler.

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?

The output schema and annotations cover return shape and safety, and the description covers triggers. However, the undocumented business parameter is a real gap for correct invocation when non-default behavior is intended, and no relationship to catalog inspection tools is explained.

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 only parameter, business, has no schema description and is not mentioned anywhere in the tool description, leaving its meaning and effect entirely unexplained. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to compensate but did not.

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?

Description names a specific action ('re-read the Manager instance's own API description and rebuild the resource catalog') and a unique resource, the resource catalog. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like manager_catalog or manager_list, which inspect rather than rebuild the catalog.

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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions: after upgrading Manager or when a resource seems missing. It does not name exclusions or the alternative manager_catalog for checking whether a resource is present, so it stops short of a full when-not-to-use statement.

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