get_totp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the result includes the 'seconds remaining', a behavioral detail beyond the annotations, but says nothing about time-sensitivity, caching, or failure when no totp_secret exists.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key precondition and return cue front-loaded. Efficient, though the telegraphic phrasing sacrifices some clarity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry more, and it never explains the parameters or the failure behavior for credentials lacking a totp_secret. For a low-complexity read tool the annotations cover safety, but the 0% parameter coverage leaves real gaps.

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 0% and neither parameter is explained. The required 'ref' is never defined (identifier? name? UUID?) and the optional 'purpose' parameter with default '' is entirely unaddressed, so the description fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Current 2FA/TOTP code') and a scoping precondition ('for a credential that has a totp_secret'), which distinguishes it from get_credential and generate_secret. It stops short of explicitly naming siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 'credential that has a totp_secret' clause implies when the tool is applicable, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_credential or generate_secret. Usage must be inferred from the precondition.

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