Вход по телефону

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive action. The description adds valuable behavior context: it sends an SMS OTP, returns the next authentication step, and indicates that password entry is out of the agent's scope. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 compact and every sentence carries actionable meaning. It front-loads the core action, lists expected behavior, and ends with the password fallback. No filler content is present.

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?

The description covers the main flow, next-step routing, and manual fallback, and the output schema covers the return format. It would be slightly more complete with more detail on phone number formatting or failure handling, but these are secondary for this tool.

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%, and the description does not explain the phone parameter format, validation rules, or expected normalization (e.g., +7 vs 8). For a single required parameter this is a notable gap, even though the title "Phone" gives some hint.

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 states a specific action—"Начать логин" and explains it sends an SMS OTP and returns the next authentication step. It also clearly distinguishes itself from follow-up tools like confirm_otp and confirm_pin.

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 gives explicit instructions on what to do after the tool runs: ask the user for the OTP and call confirm_otp, or confirm_pin if requested, and opens the password path by launching login_cli.py. This makes the workflow unambiguous.

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