qui_check_setup

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description adds that it is a GET request. This provides some behavioral context, but the description does not disclose response behavior, auth requirements, or any potential side effects. The annotation covers the safety profile, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences long, directly front-loaded with the endpoint, and every word adds value. There is no redundant information or filler.

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 simple GET endpoint, the description is minimally adequate: it tells the agent how to invoke it. However, it omits the high-level purpose (checking if setup is required) and any context about expected return values or when to use it. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but usage context is still missing.

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 is generic with no parameter descriptions, so the description's explanation of how to pass path variables, query values, and body parameters adds crucial meaning beyond the schema. It clarifies the structure of the arguments object, which is otherwise opaque. However, it does not describe endpoint-specific parameters, so it does not fully compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 clearly identifies the action as calling the GET /auth/check-setup endpoint, which is a specific verb+resource. The endpoint name implies the purpose of checking setup status, but the description does not explicitly state what the endpoint does or how it differs from other qui_* tools beyond the unique endpoint path.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. It only explains how to construct the request, not when it is appropriate to call it.

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