ModDB session status

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

The description declares a state-changing operation ('refresh the action token'), while the annotation asserts readOnlyHint=true, i.e. no environment modification. That is a direct conflict between the text and the structured safety hint, and the description offers no reconciliation (e.g. whether the refresh is persisted locally/server-side). Per the rubric this is an annotation contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the highest-value information: what it does first, the operational cue second. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the definition is nearly complete: it tells the agent what is checked, what is refreshed, and what is reported. It stops short of saying what happens on an invalid session (error vs. status payload) or what else the status report contains.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the session is taken from configuration rather than arguments ('the configured ... session'), which is the only parameter-relevant fact.

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?

Specific verbs (validate, refresh, report) plus a specific resource (the configured Vintage Story ModDB session) and a concrete output (the logged-in account). Nothing here overlaps with the sibling CRUD tools like get_mod or update_release, so an agent can identify it instantly.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Run this first when other tools complain about an invalid session' — a real when-to-use rule tied to a failure mode. It does not name a when-not case or a specific alternative tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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