get_login_qrcode_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a meaningful side effect: opening an on-screen image viewer, gated on the file existing. However it omits what happens if the file is missing, error behavior, and the fact that the returned value is a file path.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and compact, but the trailing `:param` line is pure duplication of the schema and does not earn its place in the description.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose and the display side effect. It stops short of stating the return format (a path) or failure behavior, which matters since no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description's `:param open_image` line simply duplicates that schema text verbatim, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it retrieves the path to the local NapCat login QR code image (`qrcode.png`) and optionally displays it. This is distinct from the login flow sibling, though it never explicitly differentiates itself from `login_new_qq_by_qrcode`.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the closely related `login_new_qq_by_qrcode` sibling, nor any stated preconditions (e.g. that the QR code only exists during a pending login). The reader must infer the usage context.

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