stagenth · 二维码工具箱

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost (1 credit/次), the output storage mechanism (文件中转站返回下载 URL), and failure handling (自动退款). It does not elaborate on error cases or response structure, but these are useful behavioral details beyond the mere action.

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 two compact sentences: the first states the core action and cost, the second describes the output storage and refund. Every sentence contributes useful information, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 tool is simple with 3 parameters and a clear output (PNG download URL). The description covers cost, output handling, and failure refunds, which is adequate given schema coverage. It could explicitly mention the response format, but the URL statement suffices. No output schema exists, so the description 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented (data, filename, symbology) including symbology-specific constraints like 'ean13 需 12-13 位数字'. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, relying on the schema. Hence baseline 3 applies.

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 action: '把数据生成一维条形码 PNG' (generate a 1D barcode PNG from data). It specifies the resource (1D barcode) and differentiates from sibling tools, which are all QR-related (qr_decode, qr_generate, etc.), making it unmistakable what this tool does.

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 usage for 1D barcode generation but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when to use this instead of QR tools. There is no 'when not to use' guidance, though sibling names provide context. Cost and refund info are given, but not usage alternatives, so a middle score is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the credit cost (1 credit/time), supports multiple QR codes per image, returns an empty list when nothing is found, and notes the barcode limitation. It does not mention potential errors (e.g., invalid image), but for a simple decode tool this is sufficient.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence delivers the core purpose and key behaviors; the second adds a relevant limitation. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 simple decode tool, the description covers the essential aspects: input format (image via file_id or base64), output behavior (text list, empty list), and usage constraints (credit cost, QR-only). It lacks error handling details, but these are not critical for a standard tool invocation. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit mention of returning a text list.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description does not add extra parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but the schema already explains the mutually exclusive nature of file_id and data_base64. Baseline 3 applies when schema handles parameter documentation.

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 tool's function: '识别图片里的二维码，返回文本列表' (recognize QR codes in images, return text list). It also specifies behavior for multiple QR codes and empty results, which distinguishes it from the sibling generation tools (e.g., qr_generate, qr_vcard).

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 when to use this tool (to decode QR codes from images) and explicitly states a major exclusion: '仅识别二维码(QR)，一维条形码识别暂不支持' (only QR, not 1D barcodes). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but among the sibling tools, all are generation-oriented, so the usage context is clear.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that output is saved to a file transfer station and returns a download URL, and that failures automatically trigger a refund ('产物存入文件中转站返下载 URL。失败自动退款。'), which adds useful context beyond the schema.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes critical operational details (cost, output, refund). Every clause contributes, with no redundancy.

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 effectively covers the tool's purpose, output, and error-handling policy. Combined with a comprehensive schema covering all parameters, it provides sufficient context for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. Minor omissions like URL lifetime or explicit parameter examples do not significantly hinder usability.

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 input schema already describes all 7 parameters with detailed explanations (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but also doesn't need to since the schema is thorough.

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 tool generates a PNG QR code from text/URL ('把文本/URL 生成二维码 PNG'), specifying the action, input, and output format. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning PNG specifically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., qr_vcard, qr_wifi, qr_svg). It only describes the tool's own function and pricing, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the tool name and sibling names.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses automatic H-level 30% error correction and the return of a download URL, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not mention potential limitations such as URL expiration, image format, or any side effects, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and result. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and efficiently structured.

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 simple generation tool, the description covers the essential purpose and return type, but the absence of an output schema and lack of details about the download URL (e.g., format, persistence) leave the context incomplete. It is minimally viable but with clear 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 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 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 states it generates a branded QR code with a center logo and includes the key differentiator of automatic H-level 30% error correction. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the resource is distinct from other QR generators like qr_generate or qr_vcard.

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 a use case (creating a QR code with a centered logo) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings or any exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives, so the guidance is only implied.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior of directly returning SVG source text rather than a file, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential limitations (e.g., text length, error handling) or confirm there are no side effects beyond generation. Adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise, two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and key benefit, the second explains the return format and why it matters. No wasted 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 simple generation tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is generated and the return format (SVG source text). It also mentions use cases (embedding in pages/documents). It does not cover error behavior or size limits, but these are less critical for a straightforward tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (text, border, error_correction) with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond reaffirming the text-to-SVG concept, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the baseline.

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 tool's purpose: generating vector SVG QR codes for print or infinite scaling, and directly returning SVG source text. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like qr_generate (likely raster) and qr_logo (logo-based), and the focus on vector output is 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?

The description provides contextual usage by highlighting print and infinite scaling needs, implying when this vector variant is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though the sibling tool list suggests a clear family where this occupies the vector niche.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool generates a vCard 3.0 QR code but does not disclose the output format (e.g., image, URL, base64), any limitations (e.g., field encoding, size), or side effects. For a generation tool with no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the main action and result. Every word contributes to clarity, with no filler or repetition.

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 tool is simple (6 params, 1 required) and the schema covers all inputs, but the absence of an output schema and annotations leaves the return value/behavior unexplained. The description is adequate for basic understanding but does not fully address what the agent should expect after invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter having clear, self-explanatory Chinese descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 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 verb (生成/generate) and resource (电子名片二维码/vCard QR code) with version vCard 3.0, and adds the use case of saving directly to contacts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like qr_wifi or qr_generate.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (creating contact QR codes) and the specific format (vCard 3.0), which differentiates it from siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains a key behavior (auto-connect on scan), which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as output format, handling of hidden networks, or potential security considerations (e.g., password embedding). It adds some value but is not 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 a single, focused sentence with a brief parenthetical. It is front-loaded with the main action and purpose, with no redundant information. Ideal conciseness.

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 tool is simple with 4 parameters, no output schema, and a clear purpose. The description does not specify the output format (e.g., PNG vs SVG) or any edge cases, but the core purpose is clear. For this complexity, it is adequately complete, though adding output format would improve it.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not elaborate on parameters, but the schema already provides clear field descriptions (SSID, password, security). The description adds no extra semantic layer beyond the 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 tool's function: '生成 WiFi 配网二维码' (generate WiFi configuration QR code), with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the key benefit (phone camera scan auto-connects) and distinguishes itself from siblings like qr_vcard or qr_generate by focusing on WiFi.

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 provides clear context for when to use it (民宿/门店/会议室必备), implying practical scenarios, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools. It lacks explicit exclusions but gives a solid usage context.

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