zcc_get_device_otp

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable context that the returned values are sensitive short-lived credentials, reinforcing safe handling. No contradictions, and no additional behavioral details are needed.

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 sentences, each with a clear purpose: states the action and output, provides a prerequisite and lookup reference, and warns about sensitivity. No wasted 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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists the OTPs included, setting expectations. It covers the prerequisite and safety. Minor gap: doesn't specify response format or error conditions, but for a read operation it's adequate.

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 100% description coverage with thorough explanations for udid and device_id. The description only minimally adds by highlighting udid’s necessity, but the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 retrieves the One-Time Password (OTP) bundle for a Zscaler Client Connector device, listing all included OTP types. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like zcc_list_devices by specifying its unique output and prerequisite.

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 context by requiring the device's udid and directing the user to zcc_list_devices for lookup. It does not explicitly exclude alternative scenarios, but the purpose is sufficiently differentiated from siblings.

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