qrtap_get_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that the call returns current state plus a 'permanent' short_url, which signals what is stable versus mutable. It does not cover failure behavior (unknown id) or any auth/rate-limit context, so it is not fully complete.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed immediately by the use case. 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the returned fields, which is the essential missing piece. It stops short of describing not-found handling or whether the artifact URLs are signed/expiring, minor gaps for a single-parameter read tool.

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% and already explains that codeId is the internal UUID rather than the short_url slug. The description adds no syntax or sourcing detail beyond 'by id', so the schema is doing the heavy lifting — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with explicit scope: 'Fetch one code by id', then enumerates the fields returned (destination, label, group, external_ref, short_url, artifact URLs). This clearly separates it from the list-oriented siblings such as qrtap_list_codes and qrtap_code_history.

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?

Gives concrete usage contexts: confirm where a code points before changing it, or re-read a previously returned code. It implicitly routes the agent toward qrtap_change_destination workflows but never names an alternative sibling explicitly, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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