qr-maker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the polling nature of the tool, the return format (counts and individual statuses), and implies it's a read-only status check (not a mutation). However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, error conditions, or authentication requirements.

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?

Three tightly focused sentences with zero waste: first states purpose, second provides usage guidance, third describes return values. Every sentence adds essential information, and the description is appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 status-checking tool with no output schema, the description provides good coverage: purpose, usage context, and return format. It doesn't need to explain parameters since schema coverage is complete. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail about error cases or response structure.

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 schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the batch_id comes from batch_generate, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Check the status') and resource ('batch QR generation job'), distinguishing it from siblings like batch_generate (which creates jobs) or generate_qr (which creates single QRs). It explicitly identifies the target resource type and operation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use after batch_generate to poll for completion'), naming the specific sibling tool that precedes it. This clearly establishes the workflow context and distinguishes it from other status-checking tools like get_link or get_usage.

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