test_totp

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool generates a TOTP code and optionally compares it against an expected value, but does not clarify side effects (e.g., is it read-only?), authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens on code mismatch. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence of about 15 words. Every word is purposeful, stating the verb, resource, and optional action. There is no redundancy or 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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not specify the tool's return value (e.g., true/false, error on mismatch), nor address time-step issues, clock drift, or the effect of invalid secrets. For a verification tool, this is a significant gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides: 'credentialId' is described as containing the TOTP secret, and 'expectedCode' as an optional verification code. This aligns with the schema descriptions, offering no significant new meaning.

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 clearly states the tool verifies a TOTP secret by generating a current code and optionally checking it against an expected value. The verb 'Verify' and resource 'TOTP secret' are specific, and the action is well-defined. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'solve_2fa' or 'test_credential', which may have overlapping functionality.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'solve_2fa', 'test_credential'), nor does it mention prerequisites or context. The agent receives no guidance on appropriate selection.

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