solve_2fa

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates and fills, implying it is a write/action tool. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it submits the form), error conditions (missing secret), or idempotency. Adds some value beyond schema but lacks comprehensive behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, no filler. Front-loaded with action and output. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (generate and fill), the description is moderately complete. However, it omits context about what happens if the 2FA input field is not visible, error handling, or the expected sequence of use alongside siblings like detect_2fa, login_service, or browser_navigate. Adequate but with noticeable gaps.

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 coverage is 100%; all three parameters are described in the schema. The description indirectly references credentialId ('from the stored secret') but adds no additional syntactic or semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the action: generating a TOTP code from a stored secret and filling it into the 2FA input field. The verb 'generate' and resources 'TOTP code' and '2FA input field' are specific. Distinguishes from sibling tools like detect_2fa (detection) and solve_captcha (different type).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Implied that it follows detection, but no mention of prerequisites or when not to use. Siblings include detect_2fa and test_totp, but no differentiation provided.

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