Verify password

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that this verifies the current master password hash before sensitive actions, but does not explain side effects, failure behavior, or what happens when verification fails.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a tool with three undocumented parameters and no output schema.

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?

The description gives only the basic purpose. For a verification tool with three opaque parameters, no output schema, and annotations indicating a non-read-only/world-facing operation, it omits parameter guidance, expected result behavior, and failure semantics.

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 0% for three parameters (form, params, json_body), and the description provides no information about any of them. The description does nothing to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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: verifying the current master password hash. That distinguishes it from the sibling verify_otp tool by resource, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 before sensitive UI actions' gives a clear usage context, but there are no explicit when-not-to-use conditions or named alternatives among the many sibling authentication tools.

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