localCallbackExample

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions generating a QR code and writing a log file, which is a behavioral disclosure. Yet it omits details about the log file (e.g., location, content), whether the tool returns a value, or if the 'callback' is a blocking operation. The description is not misleading but leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and a clear development-only warning in caps. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition of structured data.

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?

The tool has no parameters and no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining return values and how the callback is used. It does not mention output at all and leaves the 'callback' mechanism ambiguous. It also fails to clarify how it relates to the numerous session QR tools, making the description incomplete given the surrounding context.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is complete (vacuously). Since there are no parameters, the description does not need to explain any. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4, and no additional semantics are required.

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 and resource: 'generate a QR code and writes a log file.' This clearly identifies the tool's main function. However, the term 'Local callback' is vague and does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like session_qr or session_qr_image, though the 'DEVELOPMENT/TEST PURPOSES' caveat helps set it apart.

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 explicitly says 'ONLY FOR DEVELOPMENT/TEST PURPOSES,' giving a clear use restriction and implying not for production. However, it does not provide alternatives or explain when not to use it versus the many QR-related sibling tools. The guidance is present but minimal.

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