get_qr_code

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by 'Retrieve details', but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires specific permissions, or handles non-existent short IDs. This leaves some ambiguity about its behavior.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, identifier, and return value. There is no redundant or unnecessary content.

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?

Despite lack of output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (target URL, metadata, timestamps). It does not mention potential errors or the QR code type, but for a retrieval operation this level of detail is sufficient.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'short_id'. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema's definition. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 clearly states the verb 'Retrieve', the resource 'existing QR code', and the identifier 'by its short ID'. It also specifies what is returned (target URL, metadata, timestamps). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_qr_codes or delete_qr_code.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the tool is clearly a retrieval operation, the description does not mention when it is appropriate to use get_qr_code instead of list_qr_codes or other specific retrieval tools like get_qr_analytics.

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