qui_get_cross_seed_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates the operation is safe/non-destructive. The description adds the fact that it is a GET request and explains argument passing conventions, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as response structure, pagination, or error handling. With annotations covering safety, this is a minimal but acceptable contribution.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. It clearly states the endpoint and the argument-passing convention. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 with an output schema available, the description is sufficient to invoke the call correctly. It does not describe the return value, but the output schema presumably handles that. The only minor gap is not clarifying that the request body is likely unnecessary for a GET, but the generic instruction is not misleading.

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 is generic (a single free-form 'arguments' object) with 0% parameter coverage. The description adds crucial meaning by specifying where path variables, query parameters, and the request body should go. This is essential for correctly invoking the tool, so it compensates 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 specific endpoint ('GET /cross-seed/status') and the resource being accessed. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like qui_get_cross_seed_async_status or qui_get_instance_cross_seed_status by naming the exact 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 explains how to pass arguments (path, query, body) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as qui_get_cross_seed_async_status or qui_get_cross_seed_local_matches. No context or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the endpoint name alone.

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