epf_reauth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the credentials source ('supplied at boot') and the practical trigger, but it does not explain side effects such as whether the previous session is invalidated or whether boot credentials failing produces an error. It is adequate but not rich.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows immediately. Every word contributes either to purpose or to when to invoke it.

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 parameterless, side-effect-focused tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and when to call it. It does not mention return values or error behavior, but given the low complexity and the presence of explicit usage triggers, it is nearly complete.

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 zero parameters)Skip; the schema provides no semantic burden. Because there are no parameters, the description cannot add parameter meaning; the high baseline for a parameterless tool applies, and the description's mention of 'credentials supplied at boot' conveniently explains why no parameters are needed.

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-plus-resource construction: 'Re-authenticate with the credentials supplied at boot.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like epf_login or epf_logout, since it specifically re-establishes an existing session rather than starting or ending one.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'after a 401 error or before a known-stale batch.' This gives clear context for invocation executions, though it does not list exclusions or explicitly compare with epf_login, stopping short of full when/when-not coverage.

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