Get recover

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the meaning of the value returned, but says nothing about the elevated authentication a recovery-code read typically requires, how the secret should be handled, or rate limiting on repeated reads.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with a clarifying parenthetical and no filler. It is efficient but arguably under-written for a secret-returning endpoint, so not quite maximal.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and there is no output schema, so return-value documentation is not strictly required. Still, for a getter whose payload is a sensitive recovery code, the description gives no indication of what the response contains or its sensitivity.

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?

All three parameters (form, params, json_body) have 0% schema description coverage and generic wrapper-style names. The description supplies no parameter information whatsoever, and with low coverage the description is expected to compensate; it 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the 2FA recovery code') and clarifies what the artifact is with a parenthetical. It does not distinguish itself from the recover-related siblings (vaultwarden_post_delete_recover, vaultwarden_post_delete_recover_token, vaultwarden_put_recover_account), so an agent cannot tell from the description alone whether this reads or regenerates the code.

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 parenthetical '(used if all 2FA devices are lost)' implies the triggering situation, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative among the several recover/2FA siblings, so the agent must infer the choice.

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