get_totp_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output length (6 digits), the time-window behavior (±1), and the dependency on a previously generated secret. It does not mention error behavior for unknown identifiers or time-sync sensitivity, but it provides meaningful behavioral detail beyond a bare one-liner.

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 sentence that leads with the action and key result, then adds the two most important qualifiers (6 digits, window ±1). There is zero redundancy and every word carries meaning.

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 one-parameter tool this is nearly adequate, but it leaves important gaps: what the identifier refers to, what the return value looks like (raw digits vs JSON), and how it relates to sibling get_latest_otp. No output schema exists, so the description should have covered more of these.

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%, so the description must compensate for the bare 'identifier' parameter. It says the secret must be previously generated, but does not explain that the identifier is the one returned by generate_totp_secret, nor its format or provenance. This leaves an agent guessing what value to actually pass.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compute') with a clear resource ('current TOTP code') and adds the format (6 digits) and a prerequisite (previously generated secret). It is distinct enough from generate_totp_secret, but it does not explicitly differentiate from get_latest_otp, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for a previously generated secret' implies the tool should be used after generate_totp_secret, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_latest_otp. There is clear context but no exclusions or named alternatives.

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