totp_code

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that computation runs locally and that the secret never leaves the machine, a meaningful privacy/behavioral trait. It stops short of describing output format or time-dependence, but the disclosed trait is significant.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and purpose, no redundancy. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's core function and a key behavioral trait.

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?

The description covers purpose and a key behavior but lacks an explicit mention of return value. Given the tool's simplicity and presence of defaults in schema, it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Only 25% of parameters have schema descriptions (secret). The description mentions the shared secret but fails to explain digits, period, or algorithm, leaving these parameters under-documented. With schema coverage low, the description should compensate but does not.

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 the specific verb 'Compute' and clearly identifies the resource as the authenticator code for an account with a shared-secret 2FA. It further specifies RFC 6238 and local execution, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like wait_for_code that likely handle external SMS codes.

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 the precondition ('an account whose second factor was set up with a shared secret') which tells when to use. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate from siblings.

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