Refresh a user's devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the mechanism (immediate network query, cache refresh) and that it affects cached device/cross-signing keys. However, it doesn't specify whether the operation is safe/idempotent, what happens if the remote server is unreachable, or any permission requirements.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first explains what the tool does, the second clarifies when to use it. No wasted words or redundant details.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus schema fully cover purpose, action, parameter, and use case. The description's mention of caching and encryption issues provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it 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 100% coverage for the single required userId parameter, including an example (@bob:otherserver.com). The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so it relies on the schema, which is complete. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('query... and refresh...') on a clear resource ('federated user's /devices endpoint'), and the purpose is further clarified with a concrete use case ('resolving encryption issues'). This distinguishes it from all sibling admin tools, which target registration tokens, room state, or user evacuation.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool ('Useful for resolving encryption issues with remote users'), giving a clear contextual trigger. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool serves the same purpose, so the guidance is adequate.

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