auth_start_qr_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the outputs (login URL, base64 PNG QR code, session_id), describes the user-facing action (show QR for scanning), and indicates the next step (poll). It does not mention expiration or session cleanup, but for this flow the provided behavior 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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and packs essential behavior into a small space. Every sentence contributes: what it does, what it returns, and what to do next. No filler or 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values; it does, explicitly listing the URL, QR, and session_id. It also completes the workflow by naming the follow-up call. Missing details like QR expiration or platform constraints are minor given the simple one-parameter signature and clear next step.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly tells the agent the default platform is 'miyoushe' by saying 'Miyoushe QR login,' but it does not explain the 'platform' parameter's allowed values or behavior when changed. With a single optional parameter and a default, this is a minor but real gap.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Start a Miyoushe QR login.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from its sibling auth_poll_qr_login by framing this as the initiating step and explicitly naming the follow-up. An agent can confidently identify when to call start vs. poll.

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?

It provides clear context: this is the entry point for QR login. It also gives explicit follow-up instructions ('then call auth_poll_qr_login'), which is highly valuable. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like auth_status, but the intended QR flow is clear.

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