get_password_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds value by specifying that only metadata is returned, not the password, and lists the specific metadata fields. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear expectation of behavior.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the crucial caveat about not returning the password is clearly separated. No unnecessary words.

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 read-only tool, the description fully captures what it does, what it returns, and an important limitation. The output schema exists, so return details are not required, but the description still provides a human-readable summary.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter meanings. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description effectively channels attention to the output rather than params, which is appropriate.

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 specifies the resource (configured 2FA password) and the type of information returned (enabled status, hint, recovery email). It effectively conveys 'get information about 2FA password' and is distinguishable from siblings like auth_submit_code or auth_request_code.

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 description implies use for checking 2FA configuration status without returning the password itself. It provides a clear when-not by explicitly stating 'НЕ возвращает сам пароль' (does not return the password), but does not discuss alternatives. Since no direct alternative exists among siblings, this is adequate.

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