pine_auth_request_code

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

Describes the action (email sent, request_token returned) and user interaction (ask user for code). Without annotations, this disclosure is sufficient for a simple code request. Lacks details on rate limits or email delivery guarantees, but not critical.

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?

Three sentences, step-numbered, no redundancy. Each sentence adds value: action, user instruction, next step.

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?

With an output schema present (though not shown), the description covers the purpose and flow. Missing potential error cases or prerequisites, but overall adequate for a simple authentication step.

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?

Only one parameter (email). The description mentions 'Pine AI email' but does not specify format, validation, or constraints. Schema coverage is 0%, so description should compensate but does not sufficiently clarify parameter semantics.

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 action: 'Send a verification code to the user's Pine AI email.' It identifies itself as Step 1 and distinguishes from the sibling tool pine_auth_verify_code by outlining the sequential flow.

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 use this tool (as Step 1) and when to use the sibling (Step 2: call pine_auth_verify_code after receiving the code). It advises asking the user to check email and spam.

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