login_qr_recognize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation requires no authentication, returns QR text and session_id, and is intended for validation of login_qr_start output. It does not cover failure behavior or edge cases, but for a simple read-only recognition utility the disclosed behavior is reasonably complete.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then covers output and use case. Every clause contributes useful information, with no wasted words.

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 explains the input, the output fields, the authentication requirement, and the intended use case. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, though exact response structure is not specified.

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%, and the only parameter image_path is described as a PNG QR code file path. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: recognizing QR code content from a PNG image. It also names its output (QR text and session_id) and its intended role (verifying login_qr_start-generated QR files), which distinguishes it from sibling authentication 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 clear context: it is for testing/auto-login chain verification and requires no authentication. It even names login_qr_start as the source of the QR file to validate. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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