Refresh Login

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose side effects. It explicitly states that cookies are stored in each tenant's Azure Key Vault, which clearly signals a state-changing operation. However, it does not mention permissions, overwrite behavior, failure consequences, or whether existing sessions are invalidated, leaving only partial 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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the side effect is neatly added in the second. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.

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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, so return values are already covered. The description covers the purpose, scope, and storage side effect. It lacks explicit prerequisites and the meaning of null for 'all tenants', but overall it provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the tool description clarifies that the 'tenant' argument selects one or all tenants. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw nullable string schema, though it does not explicitly state that null means 'all tenants'.

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 specific action: refreshing SentinelOne session cookies, and the resource scope: one or all tenants. It also names the storage side effect in Azure Key Vault, distinguishing it from the sibling query and threat tools. The verb and resource are precise, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention conditions that warrant calling this tool, prerequisites, or how it differs from sibling tools. The only clue is the tool name and generic purpose, which is insufficient for an agent to decide between this and alternatives.

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