qui_get_backup_settings

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'GET' is consistent. The description adds the argument-passing convention (path, query, body), which is useful behavioral context, but does not disclose prerequisites, rate limits, or error behavior. 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the endpoint URL and then succinctly explains argument structure. No wasted words; every part adds value.

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 an output schema, so return values are covered, but for a generic passthrough tool, the description lacks critical specifics such as the required instanceID path variable, available query parameters, and any error handling. The low schema coverage makes this incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without additional info.

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 coverage is 0% (generic 'arguments' object). The description explains that path variables go directly in arguments, query in arguments.params, and body in arguments.body, but does not specify which path variables (e.g., instanceID) or query parameters are required. This provides a structural convention but lacks concrete parameter semantics.

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 states it calls a GET endpoint for backup settings, which conveys a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like qui_update_backup_settings by the HTTP method and path, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage for retrieving backup settings via the endpoint name, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other backup-related tools. It does explain how to structure arguments (path/query/body), which indirectly helps in using it correctly.

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