generate_item_totp

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

No annotations exist, so the descrption must carry the behavioral burden. 'Generate' implies a non-mutating operation, but the descrption does not state whether access to the item's TOTP secret is required, what happens if the item has no TOTP field, or what kind of result is returned. Those are meaningful unknowns for a tool with no output schema.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the operation, resource, addressing mechanism, and optional field targeting efficiently.

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?

With eight params, zero required fields, multiple addressing strategies, and no output schema, this is a non-trivial tool call. The description gives only the high-level purpose and leaves unclear the URI-versus-selector relationship, ambiguity behavior, and output shape, so an agent lacks sufficient context for confident invocation.

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 descrption coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds the useful grouping of several lookup params as 'selectors' and 'targeting a specific field,' but it does not explain how the selector params relate or which combinations are valid, so the semantic value added over the schema is modest.

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?

Description names a specific operation and resource: 'Generate TOTP code(s) for an item...' and the phrase 'by URI or selectors' evokes the item-addressing mechanisms. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling generate_totp, which sounds generic rather than item-based.

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 implies use this when you need a TOTP code for an existing item, and it names URI or selector-based addressing. However, it never explicitly contrasts with generate_totp, nor says when not to use this tool, so the when/when-not guidance is only implicit.

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