liveauth_mcp_refresh

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavior (no re-authentication required) and the outcome (new JWT). However, it does not mention token rotation, single-use semantics, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 concise sentences, no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter guidance is integrated naturally. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the purpose, the input source, and the expected result (new JWT). It lacks only minor details like potential errors or whether the refresh token is reusable, but these are not critical for basic invocation.

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 description for refreshToken already provides full coverage (100%), and the tool description essentially restates the same source. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the description adds minimal extra meaning, hence the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('refresh the JWT token') and explicitly states what it achieves ('get a new JWT'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing the confirm response, making its role in the auth flow clear.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: after confirm, using the refreshToken from confirm. It implies it is the alternative to re-authenticating, providing a clear context. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling set makes the intended use obvious.

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