Get duo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's real contribution is the '(masked)' note, which tells the agent that returned Duo secrets are redacted — useful, but it says nothing about required permissions or what happens when Duo is not configured.

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?

A single six-word sentence with the resource and the key masking caveat front-loaded; nothing is padded. It is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain the return shape and the meaning of the three loosely-typed parameters; it does neither. For a tool whose schema is essentially opaque, a one-line description leaves significant gaps.

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?

Three parameters (form, params, json_body) exist with 0% schema description coverage, and the description gives no clue what they mean or how to populate them. With this coverage gap the description needs to compensate and does not.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get current Duo 2FA configuration') and adds the '(masked)' qualifier, so an agent knows it retrieves Duo-specific 2FA settings rather than generic two-factor data. It never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling vaultwarden_get_twofactor, which is the main remaining ambiguity.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus vaultwarden_get_twofactor, vaultwarden_activate_duo, or vaultwarden_remove_2fa. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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