two_factor_check_confirmed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states that it returns a boolean indicating confirmation, but does not disclose what happens if 2FA is not required, whether it blocks, or any side effects (though it's likely a read-only check). Missing details about error handling or timing, but the core behavior is clear.

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 sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the context (after login) and states the return value and purpose. Perfectly concise.

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 complexity (a simple check tool with one optional param and no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It lacks information about potential errors, rate limits, or what 'confirmed' means precisely (e.g., does it auto-approve? Is it a poll?). But for a simple gate, it is adequate.

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 one optional parameter `subdomain` with no description. The description does not explain its purpose, but with only one parameter and it being optional, the agent might infer it targets a specific domain. Since coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it does not. However, the parameter is likely obvious from sibling tools like `login` that also use subdomain, so score is moderate.

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 a specific action: check 2FA confirmation status after login, and explains the return value (True when safe to proceed). It distinguishes itself from `two_factor_finish`, which is the next step, and from `login` variants.

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?

It states when to use: after a login that required 2FA. It implies the sequence: call this before `two_factor_finish`. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like `auth_status` or `login_from_session` for checking auth state, but the context is clear enough.

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