code-fundi-auth-resend

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

Annotations only include readOnlyHint: false, so the description carries some burden. It adds the POST method and default type context, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., sending an email, rate limits) or error behaviors. The added flow information is useful but not deeply behavioral, so a moderate score is appropriate.

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 concise, with three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: what the tool does, when to use it, and a key parameter default. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no filler or 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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and parameter default sufficiently. It lacks details on failure modes or response handling, but given the simplicity and schema coverage, it is nearly complete.

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 100% and already includes the default for 'type' ('signup') and the purpose of each parameter. The description's mention of default type is redundant with the schema, so it adds no additional meaning beyond what is already structured.

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 with a specific verb ('Resend') and resource ('OTP email'), and includes the endpoint. It also differentiates from siblings by placing it within the auth flow ('after authenticate, before verify'), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly specifies when to use the tool ('when the previous code expired or was not received') and gives sequencing instructions relative to sibling tools ('Use after code-fundi-auth-authenticate, before code-fundi-auth-verify'). This provides clear guidance on placement in the workflow.

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