refresh_token

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

没有注解，描述承担全部责任。它揭示了自动续期行为和有效期重置，但未提及可能的副作用、权限要求、频率限制或幂等性，行为透明性不足。

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?

两句话简明扼要，关键信息（续期、60天、自动）前置，无冗余内容，结构高效。

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?

对于无参数、无输出schema的简单工具，描述提供了核心行为和默认调用场景，但缺少手动调用的必要场景说明，完整性略有欠缺。

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?

此工具没有参数，schema覆盖率为100%，描述无需额外解释参数。无参数的工具基线为4，符合要求。

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?

描述明确说明了操作是'续期访问令牌'，并给出了具体效果（有效期重置为60天），动词和资源清晰，与兄弟工具（如check_token）形成区分。

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?

描述提到'通常不必手动调用'，暗示了非使用场景，但没有说明何时需要手动调用或提供替代方案。虽有一定指引，但不够完整。

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