mfa_recovery_codes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'List MFA recovery codes.' It conveys a non-destructive read action through 'List,' but does not disclose whether the codes are single-use, whether listing them regenerates or invalidates existing codes, or whether authentication is required. For a security-sensitive resource like recovery codes, this 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('List') and the object ('MFA recovery codes'). It contains no filler, repetition, or tangential information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool is simple in terms of parameters and has an output schema, but the description supplies no usage context or security caveats for MFA recovery codes. An agent cannot determine from the description alone when to choose this over mfa_generate_secret, nor whether calling it has side effects. The lack of any guidance around the operation makes it incomplete for a sensitive security context.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify or misunderstand. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not introduce any parameter-related confusion. Nothing more is needed here.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' plus the resource 'MFA recovery codes,' clearly indicating a read-only retrieval operation. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like mfa_generate_secret or mfa_enable because 'list' implies returning existing codes rather than creating or enabling them. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it stops short of a top score.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mfa_generate_secret or mfa_enable. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as MFA being enabled, nor any indication of when another MFA-related tool should be chosen instead. This is effectively a flat listing with no contextual direction.

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