get_two_factor_status

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses almost nothing: not the authentication requirement, not whose status is queried, and not what the response contains (e.g., enabled/disabled/setup-pending). It is not misleading, but it provides minimal behavioral context.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. The phrase 'self-hosted Umami' adds some product context but does not add much beyond identifying the resource.

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 zero-parameter query tool this is nearly adequate, but it leaves two important gaps: it does not clarify that it returns the current authenticated user's 2FA status (versus get_user_two_factor_status), and without an output schema it does not describe the status values returned.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not misrepresent the schema.

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 has a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('Umami 2FA status'), so an agent can tell it retrieves two-factor authentication status. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling 'get_user_two_factor_status', which likely retrieves another user's status, leaving whose status is returned ambiguous.

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 indication of when to use this tool rather than alternatives such as get_user_two_factor_status or complete_two_factor_login. The description gives no prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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