waha_get_qr_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a 'raw QR string value' for generating a scannable QR code, which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, whether this initiates authentication or just retrieves an existing code, or error handling—critical for an authentication-related tool with no structured safety hints.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second clarifies the return value. It's front-loaded with the core function and efficiently structured, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (authentication-related with one parameter) and no annotations or output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and return format but lacks usage context, behavioral details, and integration with siblings. It's adequate for a simple retrieval tool but insufficient for full agent guidance without additional context.

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% (the single parameter 'session' is documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how the session parameter affects QR code generation). This meets the minimum viable standard without extra value.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get QR code for WhatsApp authentication' specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('QR code'), with context about WhatsApp authentication. It distinguishes from siblings like 'waha_check_auth_status' or 'waha_request_pairing_code' by focusing on QR code retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly compare to them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., session setup), timing (e.g., during authentication flow), or exclusions (e.g., not needed if already authenticated). Siblings like 'waha_check_auth_status' or 'waha_request_pairing_code' offer similar authentication functions without clear differentiation here.

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