refresh_auth

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool reloads from disk and attempts re-authentication, and returns a status. However, it lacks details on side effects, failure modes, or what happens during re-authentication. Adequate but not thorough.

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 concise with four sentences: first states action, second and third provide usage context, fourth describes return. No unnecessary words, well 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?

Given no parameters and only an output schema, the description covers purpose, use cases, and return value comprehensively. For a simple auth refresh tool, it provides sufficient context.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline score of 4 applies as no parameter details are required.

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 tool's action ('Reload auth tokens from disk or run headless re-authentication') and specifies distinct use cases (after `nlm login` or automatic re-authentication). It differentiates itself from sibling tools like `save_auth_tokens` by focusing on reloading and re-authentication.

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?

Explicitly states when to call the tool: 'Call this after running `nlm login` to pick up new tokens, or to attempt automatic re-authentication if Chrome profile has saved login.' Provides clear context, though no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative comparisons.

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