jms_refresh_terminal_auth

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the conditional behavior of refreshing if valid or reporting re-login. However, it does not explain side effects, what 'refresh' actually does, or how the force parameter alters behavior, which leaves ambiguity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the primary behavior. It is well-structured and wastes no words, though it is slightly under-specified in other dimensions.

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 description covers the core behavior but omits crucial guidance on the force parameter and how this tool fits within the terminal authentication workflow. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the overall description remains minimal for a tool with a parameter.

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 schema has one boolean parameter 'force' with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not mention this parameter at all. Since the description must compensate for the missing schema details and fails to do so, the parameter semantics are poorly communicated.

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 tool refreshes a persisted cookie-backed terminal session and reports re-login if invalid. It uses a specific verb and resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like jms_acquire_terminal_session.

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 implies this tool is for refreshing an existing session, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus acquiring a new session or provide any exclusion criteria. No alternatives are mentioned, leaving usage context vague.

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