peaka_get_metadata_refresh_status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the exact possible statuses and clarifying this only checks status rather than triggering a refresh. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: purpose and statuses come first, followed by a concise, actionable projectId instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a simple 2-parameter read-only status check, the description covers the action, resource, status vocabulary, and prerequisite workflow. A minor gap is the lack of explicit return-shape detail beyond the status enumeration, but this is not a severe omission.

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 descriptions already fully document both parameters. The description adds meaningful workflow guidance for projectId—how to discover it, ask the user, and persist it—which goes beyond the schema. catalogId receives no additional semantic detail, but the schema suffices.

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 (check status) on a specific resource (metadata refresh job for a catalog) and enumerates the possible statuses. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling refresh or query tools.

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 an explicit prerequisite workflow: call peaka_list_projects first and ask the user which project to use if projectId is unknown, then remember it. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling status/refresh tools, but the context is clear.

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