zcc_get_device_otp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with "Read-only (GET, no tenant mutation)". More importantly, it adds critical context: "returned values ARE sensitive short-lived credentials — treat them like passwords". This goes beyond annotations and alerts the agent to handle the output securely.

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?

Two crisp sentences that front-load the core purpose, followed by essential safety and prerequisite details. Every sentence earns its place with zero fluff.

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?

Covers purpose, OTP types, sensitivity, and the prerequisite. Lacks details about the return format or structure, but no output schema exists, and the tool is a straightforward GET. The udid/device_id ambiguity is a minor gap but doesn't prevent basic use.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains `udid` as the device identifier and points to zcc_list_devices, but it omits `device_id` entirely, leaving its role unclear. Also, the description says udid is required while the schema marks it optional (default null), creating a contradiction that undermines parameter understanding.

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 tool's function: "Get the OTP bundle for a ZCC device" and enumerates the OTP types (logout / exit / uninstall / disable). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like zcc_list_devices.

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?

Provides a clear prerequisite: "Requires the device's `udid` (from `zcc_list_devices`)"—telling the agent exactly where to obtain the required identifier. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or explain the alternative device_id parameter, but the context is clear enough.

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