tool_totp

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 not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it generates or validates codes, how secrets should be encoded (e.g., base32), or what happens on invalid input. The 'Outputs' list is present but lacks semantic explanation.

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 short and organized into clear Parameters/Outputs sections, making it easy to scan. However, the individual parameter descriptions ('Secret', 'Digits') are pure tautologies that add no information, and the opening '[utility] TOTP' is just a title. It is concise but under-specified.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and six parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's core behavior, required input formats, defaults, or error behavior, leaving an agent unable to reliably invoke it correctly. The output list gives a hint but not enough.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage, though descriptions are just field names. The description adds meaningful structure by separating inputs (secret, digits, period) from outputs (code, remaining, counter), which clarifies role beyond the flat schema. However, it does not explain value formats (e.g., secret encoding) or defaults, so it only partially compensates.

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 opens with '[utility] TOTP' and lists parameters/outputs, but never states a verb or explicit action such as 'generate' or 'verify'. It relies on the reader inferring the tool's purpose from the name and field names, making it effectively a tautology of the tool name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of typical use cases. The description simply lists fields without any contextual or comparative information.

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