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. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'List'), it supports pagination ('cursor pagination'), and it returns reusable style presets. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but covers the essential read/list behavior adequately.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: first defines the purpose and resource, second adds behavioral context (pagination). Every phrase adds value with zero waste, making it easy to parse.

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 simple list tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers what the tool does and pagination support, but lacks details on return format, error handling, or example usage. Given the low complexity, it's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain pagination mechanics or default behaviors). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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 ('List') and resource ('saved QR code style presets'), and explains what these presets are ('visual settings like colors, dots, logos'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_template' or 'render_template', which would require a 5.

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 'cursor pagination' for handling large result sets, suggesting when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_capabilities' or 'list_links', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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