Refresh OBS Session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it forces a new login and issues a fresh token, but it does not mention side effects (e.g., invalidating existing sessions), authentication requirements, or rate limits. It does not explain what happens to the old token or whether user interaction is needed. This is a minimal disclosure for a session-refresh 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, direct sentence that front-loads the action. It contains no filler or redundant information, and every word contributes to the meaning. It is perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 trivial tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states the core function, but it omits practical context such as when to call it (expired session) and any prerequisites (e.g., existing OBS login). The lack of behavioral transparency lowers this score, but the tool's simplicity means a higher bar is not strictly required.

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 there is nothing to describe. Per the rubric, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameters. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), so no compensation 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 action: 'Force a new OBS login and issue a fresh API token.' It identifies the resource (OBS) and the operation (refresh). It is distinguishable from siblings like obs_auth_status, which likely checks status, and refresh_session (without prefix), which is for a different system. However, it does not explicitly contrast with those alternatives, so it misses the top score for 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 does not mention typical triggers (e.g., expired token, 401 errors) or why one would choose obs_refresh_session over obs_auth_status or refresh_session. The phrase 'Force a new login' implies a need for fresh credentials, but this is not explicit.

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