refresh_report_access_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states 'Updates the authentication token' without disclosing side effects (e.g., invalidation of old token), rate limits, or authentication requirements. This is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 sentence with no extraneous content. It is concise and front-loaded. However, it may be too brief given the lack of annotations, but this dimension rewards efficiency over completeness.

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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it omits what a 'refresh' implies (e.g., generates a new token), and the phrase 'pull data from Tenable Cloud' is somewhat vague. An agent might need more context to understand the tool's exact effect.

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, so the baseline is 4 per rubric. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable since the schema covers all (empty) parameters. No further explanation 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 identifies the action ('Updates') and the resource ('authentication token required to pull data from Tenable Cloud'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_report_access_token' by implying a refresh operation rather than retrieval, though it could be more explicit about the refresh nature.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_report_access_token'. The description does not include context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool should be invoked, leaving the agent without decision support.

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