bsky_refresh_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action ('refreshes a session') without explaining what this entails: whether it requires authentication, modifies server state, has side effects (e.g., extending session lifetime), returns new tokens, or handles errors. For a session management tool with zero annotation coverage, this is critically inadequate.

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 extremely concise—a single Japanese sentence—with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action. While under-specified, it's not verbose or poorly structured from a brevity perspective.

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 the tool's likely complexity (session management often involves authentication state, tokens, and expiration) and the presence of an output schema (which might describe return values), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's role in the authentication flow, prerequisites, or behavioral outcomes. With no annotations and minimal parameter coverage, the description doesn't provide enough context for effective use.

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 has 1 parameter ('acting_handle') with 0% description coverage in the schema itself. The tool description provides no information about parameters—it doesn't mention 'acting_handle' at all or explain its purpose (e.g., optional user handle for session refresh). With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, parameter understanding is severely lacking.

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 'セッションを更新します' (Refreshes a session) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'bsky_refresh_session' in Japanese. It doesn't specify what type of session (authentication/API), what resource it operates on, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'bsky_login' or 'bsky_logout'. While the verb 'refresh' is clear, the description lacks specificity and sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing session), timing (e.g., when sessions expire), or relationships to sibling tools like 'bsky_login' (for initial authentication) or 'bsky_logout' (for ending sessions). There's complete absence of usage context.

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