auth_send_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side-effecting behavior (sending an SMS) and the required phone format, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential rate limits, code expiration, idempotency, or whether the phone must already be registered, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences, with the core action and format front-loaded and the login-step context following. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information.

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 the low complexity (one required parameter, no nested objects, and an existing output schema), the description is nearly complete. It provides the purpose, phone format, and step context. A brief note about prerequisites or behavior on invalid phones would push it to a 5, but nothing essential is missing for basic invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented phone parameter. It adds the expected format '79161234567', which is genuinely valuable and goes beyond the bare schema. For a single obvious parameter, this is sufficient semantic guidance.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Отправить SMS-код на телефон' clearly states the action and target. It also provides the expected phone format and positions itself as the first step of login, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like auth_login and auth_set_token.

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 clear usage context by stating this is the first step of login, implying it should be used before auth_login. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name an alternative, though the 'first step' framing is fairly directional.

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