get_2fa_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. The verb 'Check' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that no changes are made, nor does it mention the result format, authentication requirements, or any side effects. It adds minimal context beyond the action itself.

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 a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the action and target. There is no unnecessary verbosity or redundancy; every word contributes meaning.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It clarifies what is being checked, but it does not explicitly state the return value (e.g., 'returns true if 2FA is enabled'). Still, the phrase 'Check if' strongly implies a boolean/status result, so it is reasonably complete for its complexity level.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema is empty. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4 because no parameter documentation is needed. The description clarifies the scope ('for the account'), which adds relevant context without needing to explain param syntax.

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 'Check' and clearly identifies the resource: two-factor authentication configuration for the account. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like set_2fa or remove_2fa, which are mutation tools, whereas this is a read-only status check.

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 clearly implies its use case: to verify whether 2FA is configured. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear given the sibling tool names and the status-check nature. A small mention of 'use generate_2fa_config to set up' would have made it a 5, but it is still adequate.

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