generate_totp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It accurately says the tool generates a token, but it does not disclose time-dependence, invalid-input behavior, or the fact that this is a stateless computation with no vault 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 a single efficient sentence with the action and source front-loaded. Every word contributes; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 two-parameter stateless tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the core action and input. The output format is partially handled by the schema's enum. It could be improved by explicitly routing to generate_item_totp for vault-based TOTP generation, but the missing context is minor.

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 schema already documents both parameters, including the secretOrUri format and output enum/default. The description essentially restates the schema's parameter descriptions without adding extra meaning such as validation rules or edge cases.

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 ('generate'), a concrete artifact ('TOTP token'), and the accepted sources ('secret or otpauth URI'). This source phrase distinguishes it from the sibling generate_item_totp, which operates on a stored vault item.

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 when to use it: when you have a raw secret or otpauth URI rather than a vault item. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative (generate_item_totp) or state when not to use this tool.

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