get_2fa_code

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavior: it polls Twilio API, extracts the code, does not expose credentials, and explains timeout and baseline state. This is comprehensive.

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 well-structured with a bold lead sentence, clear sections, and no fluff. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the complexity.

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 complexity (polling, Twilio, regex), the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameters, prerequisites, behavior, and return. Output schema exists but description still explains extraction. No gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so description fully compensates. It explains 'app_keyword' with examples, 'code_pattern' with default and override, 'timeout' with default, and includes required .env entries. Adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the verb 'Fetch', the resource '2FA OTP code', and the context 'AFTER clicking Send Code'. It is specific and distinguishes from any sibling tools, none of which handle 2FA.

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 explicitly says when to call the tool ('AFTER triggering the 2FA send') and explains the polling behavior with Twilio latency. It lacks a 'when not to use' statement or explicit alternatives, but given the specialization, this is minor.

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