vk_get_user_b690f67e3bd8

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses several behaviors: returns an error if TOTP is not enabled, request body is usually unnecessary, parameter naming conventions (camelCase/snake_case aliases), and authentication requirement. This goes beyond a simple 'get' statement, though it omits response structure.

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?

Written in four sentences, each providing distinct information: purpose, endpoint proxy, return behavior, and request/auth notes. It is compact and logically ordered, though the opening fragment could be integrated but does not waste 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, error case, authentication, and parameter conventions. It could mention response format, but for a simple GET proxy it is sufficiently complete.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema covers everything. The description adds generic info about path/query parameter handling and aliases, which is not needed here but harmless. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and no parameter-specific gaps exist.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves the current user's TOTP setting, explicitly naming the endpoint (GET /user/settings/totp) and distinguishing it from sibling user-related tools. The verb 'get' and resource 'totp setting' are specific.

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?

Implied usage is to fetch TOTP settings, but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. Mentions authentication is required and that no request body is usually needed, giving context, but does not name alternative tools for similar operations.

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