get_login_qrcode_image

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 does disclose that the image viewer opens only if the file exists and that the action is optional, which is useful behavioral context. However, it omits key details such as the return shape (e.g., a path string or error message), permission requirements, and what happens when the file is missing.

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 compact and front-loads the core action before mentioning the optional parameter. The trailing ':param open_image' line is somewhat redundant given the schema, but overall it is appropriately sized with no wasted prose.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic operation but leaves gaps around the return value and error behavior when the QR file is absent. It is minimally adequate but not complete enough to let an agent call it with full confidence.

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%, so the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the same parameter explanation with no additional meaning, format details, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it retrieves the local latest NapCat login QR code image path and optionally opens it on screen. It clearly distinguishes the tool's immediate scope (viewing a local file), but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like login_new_qq_by_qrcode or get_login_info, which could be confused with it.

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 says what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as login_new_qq_by_qrcode or get_login_info. There are no prerequisites or exclusions stated, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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