mfa_generate_secret

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It only says a new secret is generated; it does not explain whether this replaces an existing secret, whether the secret is returned to the caller, or whether enrollment must be completed by a subsequent call to mfa_enable.

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 compact sentence that immediately conveys the operation and its enrolment context. There is no redundant wording or unhelpful filler.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description plus the presence of an output schema is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The main gap is behavioral caveats about existing MFA state, but that is already factored into the behavioral transparency score.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so nothing about parameters needs to be added. The description correctly implies no inputs are required.

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: 'Generate a new TOTP secret'. The parenthetical '(enrolment)' clarifies the stage of the MFA lifecycle and distinguishes this from sibling tools like mfa_enable, mfa_disable, and mfa_recovery_codes.

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 word 'enrolment' implies this is used when setting up TOTP, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus mfa_enable or how it fits into the MFA flow. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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