auth_refresh

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. Merely saying 'refresh the authentication token' does not explain what happens to the existing token, whether a new token is returned, if authentication is required, or if the operation is idempotent. This is a significant gap for a security-sensitive operation.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a parameterless tool, though it could have added a brief clause about the result or side effects without becoming verbose.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of operational context. It fails to explain what the refresh produces, when it is needed, or how it relates to auth_login. For an authentication operation, an agent needs more context to invoke it correctly and safely.

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 input schema is empty and the tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description need not add parameter details, and it doesn't conflict with the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('refresh') and resource ('authentication token'), clearly indicating the tool's core action. It is distinguishable from the sibling auth_login, which implies initial authentication, though the description does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as auth_login. It doesn't mention that refresh should be used when a token is expiring, nor does it state any prerequisites or conditions for calling it.

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