zmp_request_login_qr

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a new session is created but never says whether an existing session is invalidated, what permissions or Zalo account state are required, how long the QR remains valid, or what happens when polling times out. The one behavioral hint ('wait/poll until scanned') largely duplicates the waitForScan schema field.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no padding. The second sentence is slightly redundant with the waitForScan field, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain the result, yet it never says what is returned (QR image, URL, session ID) or how to consume it. For a tool whose entire point is producing a scannable artifact, this is a material 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already documents (appId, projectDir, timeoutSec, waitForScan), and the wait/poll mention only restates waitForScan.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Request a new developer login session and generate a QR code for Zalo authorization.' This distinguishes it from siblings like zmp_wait_for_login and zmp_get_login_status by naming the QR-generation act, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it is not.

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 clause 'Can optionally wait/poll until scanned' implies a relationship to zmp_wait_for_login, but the description never says when to use this tool versus that one or zmp_start_oauth_callback. Usage is only implied, not stated.

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