Get 2FA setup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether the returned secret is single-use or invalidated by repeated calls, whether the account must not already have 2FA enabled, or that the secret must be confirmed via account_2fa_enable. For a read that exposes a credential, this silence is a meaningful gap.

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 front-loaded sentence that returns the resource description immediately, with zero filler. There is little structure to evaluate because the description is so short.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source for the enrollment contract, and it only obliquely covers the return shape (secret plus QR URL). It omits the lifecycle relationship to account_2fa_enable, which is the missing piece for an agent to use this correctly.

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% with all four parameters (panel, baseUrl, clientKey, applicationKey) fully documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about panel/credential override resolution, which is acceptable given the schema already handles it.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and the exact resource returned ('TOTP secret / QR image URL'), which distinguishes it from the sibling mutations account_2fa_enable and account_2fa_disable. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as the follow-up/alternative steps.

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 phrase 'to enable two-factor authentication' implies this is the first step of the 2FA enrollment flow, but the tool never states when it should be called versus account_2fa_enable / account_2fa_disable, nor what to do if 2FA is already active. Usage is only inferable from context.

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