refresh_server_memory

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses functional equivalence to build_server_memory and states the return format (structured JSON with per-module successes/failures). It does not mention potential side effects beyond cache overwrite, but for a probing tool this is acceptable. Slight lack of detail on idempotency, but overall transparent.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, usage distinction with sibling, and return format. Every sentence adds critical information. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, parameters with examples, and return value. No gaps.

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?

Both parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by providing an example for 'modules' and clarifying default behavior ('Omit to refresh all modules'). This goes beyond the schema's description.

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 clearly states the action (re-probe memory modules and overwrite cache) and the resource (memory modules for a managed instance). It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling tool build_server_memory by specifying when to use each, satisfying the distinction requirement.

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 guidance: use this tool when updating existing memory after a deploy/upgrade, and build_server_memory when no memory exists yet. This clearly tells the agent when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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