QR code reader

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld=false, yet the description adds real behavioral context: tries multiple sizes and inverted codes, never opens links, and returns safety notes for suspicious URLs. It stops short of describing failure behavior when no code is present in the image.

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 core verb and input are front-loaded and every major sentence carries information. Minor waste remains in 'Uses jsQR like the website' and the trailing web-version URL, which don't help an agent choose or call the tool.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return payload: decoded text, a content classification (Link, Wi-Fi, Contact, Email, etc.), parsed fields, and link safety notes. That is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect without any structured output definition.

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 single parameter is fully described in the schema (local path or base64/data URI, relative to --root), so baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by enumerating accepted image formats (PNG, JPEG, WebP, GIF, TIFF, AVIF, SVG), which the schema does not specify.

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 states a specific verb (read/decode) and resource (QR code) bound to an input type (image file), and enumerates the accepted formats. It implicitly separates itself from qr_generate/barcode_generate by being a decoder, but never names the nearest sibling (qr_wifi) or states the boundary explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — 'Read (decode) a QR code from an image file' tells an agent what the tool consumes, and 'Reads one code per image' is a limitation rather than selection guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over qr_wifi, qr_generate, or ai_ocr for extracting text from an image.

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