qrcode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it generates QR codes, returns an image URL (not the image itself), and specifies how to use the URL. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but covers the core operational behavior adequately for a simple tool.

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 with zero waste: the first states the purpose and output, the second explains how to use the output. Every word earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for this simple tool.

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 QR code generation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and good schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use the return value. The main gap is lack of explicit guidance versus the sibling tool 'read_qr', but otherwise it provides sufficient context.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'data' or 'size' further). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Generate a QR code') and resource ('any text or URL'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'read_qr' which presumably reads/decodes QR codes rather than creating them. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 context by mentioning what the tool returns ('Returns the image URL') and how to use the output ('embedded directly in an <img> tag or downloaded'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The existence of 'read_qr' as a sibling suggests this is for creation while that is for reading, but this distinction isn't made explicit in the description.

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 states the tool decodes QR codes and returns text, which covers the basic operation, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid URLs, non-QR images), rate limits, or authentication needs. It adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 purpose ('Decode a QR code') and includes key details (source and output) without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete: it states the action, input requirement, and output. However, it could be more complete by addressing potential errors or constraints, slightly lowering the score from 5.

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 the 'url' parameter fully documented in the schema itself. The description mentions 'publicly accessible image URL,' which aligns with the schema but does not add significant meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Decode a QR code') and resource ('from a publicly accessible image URL'), with the verb 'Decode' distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'create_qr' which presumably creates QR codes. It precisely communicates what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 this tool: when you have a publicly accessible image URL containing a QR code that needs decoding. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., using 'create_qr' for generation instead), which prevents a score of 5.

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