Refresh Auth

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 explains that the tool either reloads tokens from disk or performs headless re-authentication, and states that it returns a success status. It could be more explicit about side effects like overwriting the current session, but the core behavior and outcome are disclosed.

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 compact and well structured: main behavior first, then use cases, then return value. Every sentence adds operational value and there is no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 tool, this is complete. It explains when to call it, what it attempts to do, prerequisites (nlm login or Chrome saved login), and what the return status conveys. The output schema may hold richer detail, but the description covers the essentials an agent needs.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing parameter-specific to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior and use context instead.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Reload auth tokens from disk or run headless re-authentication.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from related tools like save_auth_tokens, which is about persisting tokens rather than refreshing them.

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 gives concrete trigger conditions: call after running `nlm login` or when Chrome profile has saved login for automatic re-authentication. It does not explicitly contrast with save_auth_tokens or state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficiently clear for a zero-parameter utility tool.

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