get_2fa_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It covers auth requirements (Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY, start_login), the polling workflow, and the meaning of each return state. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the wording strongly implies a non-mutating status check.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded summary, an agent-usage paragraph, and an access note. Every section serves a purpose, though the polling instruction is slightly redundant ('Poll this' and 'Check every few seconds'). Overall it remains compact and scannable.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains the meaningful return states and what the agent should do in each case. It also covers prerequisites, authentication setup, and the relationship to start_2fa. For a simple one-parameter polling tool, this is complete.

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 schema already covers the single parameter with a clear description ('2FA session ID'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds contextual meaning by indicating the session comes from start_2fa and how status values should drive behavior, but it does not introduce new parameter-level details beyond the 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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Check the status of a 2FA session by session ID.' It also enumerates the possible outcomes (completed, pending, expired). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling wait_for_2fa, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 explicit guidance: poll after start_2fa, check every few seconds, and react based on terminal states. It also explains what 'pending' means. It does not mention when to use wait_for_2fa instead, so exclusion guidance is absent.

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