superset_auth_refresh_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes the action (makes a request to refresh endpoint) and the outcome (returns new token or error). However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this invalidates the previous token. For a security-related tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly structured and concise. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the mechanism, and the third describes the return value. Every sentence adds essential information with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 this is an authentication tool with security implications, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should provide more complete context. While it covers the basic purpose and mechanism, it lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., must have a valid refresh token), error handling, or what the returned dictionary contains. For this complexity level, the description is adequate but incomplete.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because it could have explicitly stated 'no parameters required' to be perfectly clear, but this is a minor omission.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('refresh', 'makes a request') and identifies the exact resource ('access token', '/api/v1/security/refresh endpoint'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'superset_auth_authenticate_user' by emphasizing it works 'without requiring re-authentication with username/password', making the differentiation explicit.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when needing a new access token without re-authentication. It implicitly contrasts with 'superset_auth_authenticate_user' by mentioning the alternative approach. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or list all possible alternatives, keeping it from a perfect score.

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