refresh_polarion_config

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only mentions refreshing and caching. It omits details like idempotency, caching duration, side effects, or error conditions. A score of 2 reflects this significant gap.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage guidance. No redundant words, front-loaded with key action. Ideal for quick agent comprehension.

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 single-parameter config refresh tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage adequately. Minor gap: lacks caching behavior details, but overall sufficient for a straightforward tool.

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 description coverage is 100% (projectId is well-described in the schema). The tool description adds no new parameter information beyond 'The Project ID to fetch configuration for,' which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 explicitly states the tool refreshes and caches Polarion project configuration, listing specific resources (work item types, custom fields, workflows, enumerations). This is distinct from sibling tools like getProject or patchProject, making the purpose clear.

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 provides a clear recommendation: 'This should be called before creating or updating work items to ensure proper field validation.' This guides the agent on when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly exclude other use cases.

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