pve_tfa_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, conditional return (list vs dict), and included fields (factor type, id, metadata). It also warns about deletion risk. No mention of auth or performance, but adequate for a read operation.

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 concise sentences plus a relevant third sentence about deletion. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently covers behavior and alternatives. No wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers return format (list/dict) and content. It also links to the deletion tool for context. It could mention parameter details but is sufficient for comprehension.

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 low (33% only for proximo_target). The description adds meaning for tfa_id by explaining its effect on return type, but userid and proximo_target are not elaborated. It partially compensates but not fully.

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 reads a user's TFA entries (read-only) and specifies the conditional return behavior based on tfa_id. It distinguishes itself from the sibling pve_tfa_delete by warning about deletion risk, providing clarity on purpose.

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 explicitly guides when to use an alternative (pve_tfa_delete for removal) and notes a risk. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to pve_tfa_list, leaving minor ambiguity.

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