qui_get_dir_scan_settings

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, so the description doesn't need to explain safety. It adds context about argument passing conventions (path vs query vs body), which is useful for invocation. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, response shape, or potential errors, leaving some burden unmet.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the endpoint and immediately explains the argument structure. Every phrase is informative and there is no padding.

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 a simple read-only GET with an output schema available, the description is largely sufficient. It covers how to invoke the request, and the readOnlyHint covers the safety aspect. It could be more complete by explicitly stating what the settings are used for or adding a note about when to use it, but for its simplicity it's adequate.

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 completely opaque (one generic 'arguments' object with no descriptions). The description compensates by explaining that path variables go directly, query values go under 'arguments.params', and the body under 'arguments.body'. This adds critical structural meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not list 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 identifies the specific endpoint (GET /dir-scan/settings) and the HTTP verb, making it clear this retrieves directory scan settings. It distinguishes from sibling 'update' tools by emphasizing GET, though it could be more explicit about the tool's purpose rather than just saying 'Call endpoint'.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used to fetch current settings, nor does it reference the comparable update tool (qui_update_dir_scan_settings). The only usage-related info is how to pass arguments, not when to choose it.

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