set_qrcode_attack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the QR code is written to SET's output directory, that the URL must be allowlisted in tengu.toml, and that the return value is a dict with specific keys. It could go deeper on permissions or failure modes, but for a generation tool this is solid.

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 organized with a purpose statement, usage context, Args, and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes, though the phrasing is slightly more verbose than strictly necessary. Still, it is easy to scan and front-loads the key information.

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 low-complexity tool, the description covers the full context: purpose, physical deployment scenario, parameter constraints, return format, and output location. The presence of an output schema is noted, but the description also explains what the return dict contains, making it self-sufficient.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: url requires an allowlist entry in tengu.toml, and timeout defaults from config. This adds meaningful constraints beyond what the bare schema shows.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a QR code pointing to a malicious URL for physical social engineering.' It clearly identifies the tool's unique purpose among siblings like set_credential_harvester and set_payload_generator by naming SET's QRCode Generator Attack Vector.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: physical social engineering through printed QR codes on lanyards, posters, and signs to test user awareness. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is distinct and well described.

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