Create a Wi-Fi network QR code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ssid | Yes | Wi-Fi network name. | |
| hidden | No | Whether the network SSID is hidden. | |
| password | No | Optional Wi-Fi password. | |
| security | No | Wi-Fi security type. | WPA |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'Create', which implies a generative action, but the annotation readOnlyHint=true suggests no side effects. This is a contradiction; the description does not clarify the tool's actual behavior (e.g., it generates a QR code image without persisting anything).
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, concise sentence. It could use more structure (e.g., bullet points for parameters) but is not overly verbose.
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 lacks information about output format or return value, which is important since there is no output schema. It also doesn't address edge cases or usage notes for the parameters.
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?
All parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema definitions.
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 ('Create') and the resource ('Wi-Fi network QR code'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like qr_payment, qr_text, etc.
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?
No guidance on when or why to use this tool over alternatives like qr_text or qr_vcard. The description only states what it does, not the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct QR code type or action: payment (single/batch), reading, text, vCard, and WiFi. No overlap in purpose; descriptions clearly differentiate.
All tools follow a consistent 'qr_<purpose>' pattern (e.g., qr_payment, qr_read). Underscores and lowercase are used uniformly.
Six tools cover the core QR generation and reading needs without being excessive. Each tool has a clear role, and the count feels appropriate for the domain.
The tool set covers common QR code types (text, vCard, WiFi) and payment QR both singly and in batch, plus a decoder. No significant gaps for the stated purpose.