refresh_session

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

The description states 'Discard the in-memory login session,' which is a state-changing action, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction. Although the description adds helpful non-effect details, the contradiction undermines trust in behavioral disclosure.

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 sentences with no filler: the first names the action and its immediate consequence, the second clarifies what it does not affect. The most critical information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description explains purpose, the next-request effect, and non-effects, which is largely complete. However, the annotation contradiction leaves the operation's true semantics ambiguous, so the overall context is not fully reliable.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information missing. The description reasonably adds no parameter details because none exist.

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 ('Discard') and resource ('in-memory login session'), making the action unambiguous. It also differs clearly from the sibling tools, which are all data-retrieval or health-check operations, and adds what the tool does not do.

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 phrase 'The next data request authenticates again' gives clear context for when the effect occurs, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The sibling list makes the niche apparent, so guidance is adequate but not fully explicit.

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