Connect QR scan bus

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about sanitized events and safety notes but does not disclose side effects like where the scaffold is created, whether it overwrites existing components, or any external network interactions implied by 'adapter source'.

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 a single sentence without redundant fluff, front-loaded with the primary action. The list of components is slightly unwieldy but remains concise.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is too thin. It omits what the tool returns, prerequisites, and how the scaffold integrates into a project, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 only 22%, and the description offers only conceptual hints (sanitization policy, adapter source) that loosely map to parameters. It fails to explain specific parameter behavior, enums, or how values like route_count and scan_event_count affect the scaffold.

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 creates a QR scan scaffold and enumerates key components (sanitized scan events, route maps, sanitization policy, adapter source, token/URL safety notes). This is specific enough to distinguish from generic 'bus' tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar named sibling tools.

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. With many sibling bus-creation tools, the absence of use-case context or prerequisites makes selection difficult.

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