qui_execute_external_program

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the HTTP method (POST) implying a mutation, but fails to describe side effects, potential errors, required permissions, or runtime behavior. The agent is left guessing about what 'execute' actually does to the system.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the endpoint and then compactly explains the argument layout. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool is an open-ended API caller with a single generic arguments field and an output schema exists, the description provides the essential routing information but lacks examples or expectations. It is minimally viable but not rich enough to fully guide an agent without external knowledge of the qui API.

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 description coverage (just a free-form object), so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining the internal structure of 'arguments': path vars directly, query params in 'params', and request body in 'body'. This adds significant meaning beyond the generic schema, though it doesn't enumerate specific parameters.

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 specifies the exact HTTP endpoint (POST /external-programs/execute) and thus clearly identifies the action. It distinguishes from sibling CRUD tools for external programs by indicating this is specifically the execute operation, though it could more explicitly state that it runs an external program.

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. It explains how to structure arguments but doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or why one would choose execute over list/create/update. For an agent, there is no contextual direction.

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