Get Channel QR Code

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., does this initiate a pairing request?), required permissions, or whether it is read-only. Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden but provides minimal transparency beyond the result.

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 extremely concise (two sentences, 20 words) and front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value, with no 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?

Given the simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and usage. However, it lacks details about the output format (e.g., image URL, raw bytes) and does not differentiate from a likely similar sibling neuron_request_pair_code. For a tool with no output schema, more output context would be helpful.

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 is fully covered (100%) with a description for the 'id' parameter. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond 'The unique identifier of the channel' already in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema is sufficient.

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 'Get' and the resource 'QR code', and specifies the context 'for pairing a Baileys channel with WhatsApp'. It also provides actionable next step 'Scan with WhatsApp mobile app'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like neuron_get_channel or neuron_get_channel_status which return different channel data.

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?

The description implies usage when a QR code for pairing is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like neuron_request_pair_code (which appears in sibling list). No prerequisites, limitations, or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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