list_qtmodel_api

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: it inspects specific databases ('mdb', 'odb', 'cdb'), filters method names with a case-insensitive substring, and returns 'real signatures'. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and structured clearly with an Args section. The bilingual duplication is slightly redundant, but it is compact and every major idea is covered without wandering.

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 description covers the workflow, the parameters, and the relationship to call_qtmodel_api. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail about the exact return shape of the discovered signatures would be even better, but it is still adequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 descriptions are absent, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: api_object identifies which database to inspect with concrete allowed values, and pattern is a case-insensitive substring filter with examples. This is exactly the semantic detail an agent needs.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Discover qtmodel API methods and their real signatures.' It also explicitly differentiates this tool from the curated tools and from call_qtmodel_api, so an agent can tell what it is for without ambiguity.

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 gives explicit usage direction: use this for long-tail methods NOT covered by curated tools, and always discover the real signature here before calling call_qtmodel_api. It also says not to guess parameter names, which is a clear do-not behavior.

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