qui_get_backup_manifest

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the important behavioral detail that path variables go directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and a body in arguments.body—which is essential for invocation. It does not disclose error behavior, auth requirements, or response size, but given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the endpoint and immediately gives the argument-passing convention. There is no wasted text, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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 is fairly complex with path variables and possibly query/body parameters, but the description only provides a generic template. It doesn't specify which parameters are required, whether a request body is actually expected for this GET endpoint, or what query options exist. The output schema exists, so return values are omitted, but request construction is under-specified.

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 schema provides zero description coverage (only a generic 'arguments' object), so the description must compensate. It mentions the existence of path variables, query values, and a body, and the endpoint path names instanceID and runID. However, it does not enumerate possible query parameters or body fields, leaving the agent to guess what is actually required or optional.

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 names the exact endpoint (GET /instances/{instanceID}/backups/runs/{runID}/manifest), which indicates the tool retrieves a backup manifest for a specific run. This distinguishes it from siblings like qui_list_backup_runs or qui_import_backup_manifest. However, it doesn't explicitly state the outcome in plain language, relying on the endpoint name.

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 only explains how to pass arguments (path, query, body) but not the conditions under which this tool is appropriate. No exclusions or alternative references are given.

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