code

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. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: that the id can be a name or UUID, and importantly, that the response contains a 'secret: true' metadata flag which a gateway can intercept for sanitization or secure handle-based access. This is valuable context about handling sensitive data that an agent needs to know.

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 sentences and reasonably concise. The first sentence delivers the core purpose efficiently. The second sentence adds important security context about the metadata flag and gateway interception. However, the security detail could arguably be trimmed to be more focused; it's slightly verbose for the value it adds at the end.

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?

This is a single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, so the description burden is moderate. The description covers purpose, id flexbility (name/UUID), and importantly flags the sensitive 'secret' metadata handling. The main gap is lack of guidance on when to choose this vs 'generate' for TOTP, but for a simple retrieval tool the coverage is largely sufficient.

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 schema already documents the 'id' parameter. The description adds mild value by noting the id can be a 'name or UUID', which is a useful clarification beyond the schema's generic 'ID or name for the object.' This is a minor enhancement over the baseline 3.

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+resource: 'Get a TOTP code for an item from your vault.' This clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get' or 'generate', the TOTP-specific focus gives it a clear identity. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives like 'generate' or 'get'. The context implies this is for fetching an existing TOTP code rather than creating one, but there's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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