ksef_token_generate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses that the response is a reference number, not the token secret, that secrets are never exposed, and that the token arrives through a separate KSeF channel. It could additionally mention permission requirements or side effects, but the security-relevant behavior is well covered.

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 three short, purposeful sentences with the action front-loaded. Every clause contributes necessary information: what the tool does, the session prerequisite, the return behavior, and the security constraint. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple two-parameter generation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return semantics, the prerequisite, and the critical security caveat. It is nearly complete, though it could be slightly stronger with an explicit pointer to ksef_token_get for retrieving the actual token value.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% descriptive coverage for both parameters: 'description' is explained as an identifier and 'permissions' as the token's permission list. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Wygeneruj nowy token KSeF', a specific verb plus resource that immediately identifies the action. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling token tools such as ksef_token_list, ksef_token_get, and ksef_token_revoke because it is the only generate operation.

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?

The description explicitly states a key precondition: 'Wymaga aktywnej sesji KSeF', giving the agent clear context for when this tool can be invoked. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the warning that it returns a reference number rather than the token value implicitly routes value-retrieval needs toward ksef_token_get.

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