qr_compare

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. Discloses core behavior (pixel-by-pixel, module analysis, region classification). Missing details on side effects, output format, error handling, or performance implications. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 efficiently convey purpose, method, and use case. No redundant information. Front-loaded with action and resource.

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?

Good for a focused tool, but lacks return format details, prerequisites (e.g., image size compatibility), and error conditions. Siblings like qr_data_extract have more contextual depth.

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?

All 3 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). Description does not add significant value beyond schema, only hints at pixel-wise comparison. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents file paths and threshold.

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?

Clear verb 'Compare' with specific resource 'two QR code images'. Description details pixel-by-pixel comparison, module identification, and region analysis (data vs function). Distinct from siblings like img_compare (general) and qr_detect (detection only).

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?

States usefulness for stego modification detection, implying use case. However, no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., img_compare, qr_structure), nor any conditions to avoid.

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