get_event_qr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns a PNG image that the AI can display or save, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not discuss potential errors, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the event ID is invalid. For a missing annotation scenario, this is insufficient.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first states the primary function, and the second adds the value (display/save) and use case (signage). There is no redundancy or fluff; every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose and output format. However, it omits error conditions, input constraints (e.g., event must be public), and details on how the image is returned (binary vs. URL). The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 50% (only 'size' has a description). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify the 'event_id' parameter's format or source. The description should compensate for the schema's lack of detail, but it does not.

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 'Get a QR code image (PNG) for an event's public gallery URL.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'QR code image' are specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_event' (event details) and 'get_event_analytics' (analytics), making the purpose immediately clear.

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 mentions 'Useful for printing signage at events,' which provides a concrete use case. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use the tool, prerequisites (e.g., event must have a public gallery), or alternatives. The context is implied but not thorough.

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