Connect QR scan bus

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by listing what the scaffold creates (sanitized events, route maps, sanitization policy, adapter source, safety notes). However, it does not disclose concrete behavioral details such as how the scaffold wires into an existing project, what 'sanitized' means in practice, or whether external connections are established. Annotations already flag it as non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description does not contradict them.

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 front-loaded sentence that wastes no words and lists the main deliverables. It is concise, though the dense list of jargon-loaded terms could be clearer with slight elaboration.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. It does not explain how parameters map to the resulting scaffold, what the generated output will look like, or how the tool fits into a broader workflow. The agent would likely need to ask for clarification.

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 only 22% (2 of 9 parameters documented), so the description must compensate, but it only loosely hints at parameter roles ('adapter source' likely maps to adapter_url/adapter_mode, 'sanitization policy' to sanitization_level). It does not explain the meaning, defaults, or effect of most parameters such as active, campaign_label, scan_event_count, or route_count.

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 ('Create') and identifies a specific resource ('QR scan scaffold'), and it lists the scaffold's key components (sanitized scan events, route maps, sanitization policy, adapter source, token/URL safety notes). This clearly distinguishes it from the many similar connect_*_bus and create_* sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate use cases. The name and description imply it is for QR scan scaffolding, but no explicit 'use when...' or 'avoid if...' guidance is provided.

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