totp_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return format and rotation window, but it does not state failure behavior when the stored secret is missing, security sensitivity, or whether the operation has any side effects.

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 two tight sentences with zero wasted wording. It front-loads the core action and then adds the return behavior.

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 simple one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete and explains the returned code format and remaining seconds. It is only missing minor operational context such as what happens when the named TOTP configuration is absent.

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%, so the single name parameter is already documented. The description adds only the phrase 'for a stored secret,' which aligns with the schema without adding format or validation detail beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource: generate a TOTP 2FA code for a stored secret. It clearly distinguishes this code-generation action from sibling secret-management tools such as totp_store, totp_list, and totp_delete.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when a current TOTP code is needed from a stored configuration. However, the description does not explicitly name when to use it versus siblings or state exclusions, such as not using it to create or list TOTP configurations.

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