zont_get_authtoken

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the credential precondition, that the token is long-lived, and how the result is meant to be reused (ZONT_TOKEN). It stops short of describing failure modes or error behavior when credentials are missing/invalid.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by the precondition and the token-reuse note; the trailing client_name line reads slightly like an appended schema note rather than integrated prose but wastes no words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. For a one-parameter auth tool the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and downstream usage adequately; only error/permission edge cases are unaddressed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate — and it does, defining client_name as the human-readable name of the requesting application. Only minor ambiguity remains (format/length expectations).

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Получить долгоживущий аутентификационный токен ZONT') and is clearly distinct from every sibling, which are all device/command/archive operations rather than authentication. An agent can recognize this as the auth/bootstrap tool without opening the schema.

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?

It gives the decisive precondition (the server must be launched with ZONT_LOGIN and ZONT_PASSWORD) and explains the follow-up use of the token via ZONT_TOKEN for subsequent runs. It does not enumerate alternatives or when-not-to-use, but no sibling overlaps this purpose, so the context is effectively complete.

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