auth_poll_qr_login

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

With no annotations, the description does meaningful behavioral disclosure: it defines the three statuses, states that a confirmed session stores and returns the account, and explicitly notes that cookies stay inside the server. This is valuable beyond the name and schema, though it does not cover what happens on session expiry or repeated calls.

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: it opens with the primary action, then flows naturally into the return statuses and the stored-account side effect. No filler or redundant repetition of the tool name exists.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it links the tool to its prerequisite caller, specifies the statuses, and clarifies server-side cookie handling. Minor gaps such as invalid-session handling are not vital for choosing or invoking the tool correctly.

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 effectively 0% and the description does not directly explain the 'session_id' parameter, but it identifies where that session comes from ('started by auth_start_qr_login'). This gives enough context to infer the parameter's origin, though format or error semantics are not addressed.

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 a specific verb ('Poll') with a clear resource ('a QR login session'), and explicitly ties it to auth_start_qr_login, which distinguishes it from the sibling starter. It also enumerates the possible return statuses, making its purpose fully 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 clearly implies the tool should be used after auth_start_qr_login and that it returns pending/scanned/confirmed states, which indicates a polling flow. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with auth_status or explain when one should choose this over sibling alternatives, leaving some usage inference to the agent.

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