List QR design templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the catalog is a fixed, bounded set of 118 templates and each entry carries a preview thumbnail URL, which tells the agent this is a cheap, complete enumeration rather than a paginated or variable result.

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 sentences, no waste, with the resource and its contents front-loaded before the optional filter guidance.

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, read-only listing tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, cardinality, returned fields, and filter behavior.

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 documents the optional category filter and its example values. The description only restates the filter's purpose in user-facing terms ('if the user asks for a specific style'), adding marginal meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the 118 pre-designed QR templates') and enumerates the returned fields, which cleanly separates it from the qr_generate* siblings that produce QR codes rather than enumerate the catalog.

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 tells the agent when to apply the category filter ('if the user asks for a specific style') but never states when to choose this tool over qr_generate_from_template, nor what to do after selecting a template. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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