Refresh Catalog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool re-fetches and rebuilds (implying mutation) and notes that it avoids a server restart. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., temporary catalog unavailability, destructive behavior, or permission requirements). The disclosure is partial and leaves the agent uncertain about the operational impact.

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 two sentences, with the core action stated first and the usage context second. It is front-loaded with the purpose and then a specific trigger, with no filler or redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has no parameters, an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), and the description covers the purpose and when to use it. The added note about not restarting the server provides relevant operational context. For a simple refresh operation, the description is complete and sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100% since the input schema is empty. With no parameters to describe, the description's role is limited to the tool's action and usage, which it covers adequately. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds context about the refresh trigger, so this score 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?

The description uses specific verbs ('re-fetch', 'rebuild') and names the exact resources (OpenAPI spec, operation catalog), making the tool's function unmistakable. It also differentiates itself from siblings like 'get_operation_schema' or 'search_operations' by focusing on the catalog refresh rather than querying or invoking operations.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'after a controller firmware upgrade'. This is a clear trigger condition that helps the agent decide when to invoke this tool instead of others. It also states the benefit ('pick up new/changed/removed endpoints without restarting this server'), which aids in decision-making.

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