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.