qr-maker

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 describes the data returned but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the retrieved details without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by clarifying scope and output.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers what data is returned but lacks context on permissions, errors, or how it fits with sibling tools, which could hinder an AI agent's effective use in a broader workflow.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'link_id' well-documented as 'The short link ID or code.' The description adds minimal value by restating 'by ID or code' but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or validation rules beyond what the schema already covers.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific short link'), specifying what information is retrieved (target URL, status, click count, QR style, creation date). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_links' by focusing on a single link, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_link_analytics' which might overlap in some data.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'by ID or code,' suggesting it's for retrieving details of a known link. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'list_links' for browsing or 'get_link_analytics' for more detailed metrics, leaving some ambiguity.

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