refresh_auth

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return shape but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, whether it refreshes tokens, or what happens on failure. The word 're-validate' hints at a check but lacks side-effect transparency.

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, clear sentence plus a return type specification. It is efficient and front-loaded with the action and purpose, with no wasted words.

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 simple nature of this auth-checking tool, the description covers the essential purpose and return value. The presence of an output schema (for the return shape) reduces the need to explain return details. It lacks error handling or failure-mode info but remains adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no conflicting or extra parameter info, and since there are no parameters, no further semantic explanation is 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 clearly states the tool re-validates the stored Google session, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from the sibling tools, which focus on notebooks, sources, research, etc., so no confusion arises.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It implies a session check but lacks explicit context for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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