Refresh workspace

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: quota consumption ('one monthly check'), skip behavior for recently checked monitors (with skipped_ids returned), and a runtime error condition ('Returns 409 while discovery is running'). These are exactly the operational details an agent needs when invoking the tool.

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?

Four sentences with zero waste: core action first, then quota and skip behavior, then error condition, then alternative routing. Every sentence adds distinct value and is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 two-parameter tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers quota impact, skip semantics, error behavior, and alternative usage. Nothing critical is omitted for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so both workspace_id and competitor_id are already well described in the schema. The description only restates the competitor_id condition ('or for one competitor when competitor_id is set') without adding syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific action (queue immediate checks) on a specific resource (active monitors in a workspace) and scopes it with an optional competitor filter. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling check_monitor for single-monitor use, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly communicates when to use this tool (workspace-wide or filtered by competitor) and names the alternative for the single-monitor case ('For a single monitor, use check_monitor'). No inference is needed to choose between them.

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