qui_get_directory_content

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and argument structure, but it doesn't disclose success/failure behavior, prerequisites, or any side effects. With the annotation, a 2 is appropriate for the minimal additional context.

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, dense sentence with no fluff, front-loading the endpoint call and then detailing argument structure. It could be improved by adding a purpose clause, but as a concise instruction it is well structured.

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?

Even though an output schema exists and readOnlyHint is set, the description lacks a clear statement of what the tool does, which is critical for an agent to choose it among many sibling tools. The argument structure is covered, but the overall purpose and usage context are missing.

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 a single generic 'arguments' object with 0% property description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by specifying that path variables go directly in arguments, query values go in arguments.params, and the body in arguments.body. This is essential and goes beyond the schema.

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 merely instructs to call a specific endpoint, restating the tool name without defining what getDirectoryContent does or returns. It lacks a clear functional verb+resource description and does not distinguish the tool from siblings like qui_get_instance_mediainfo.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only explains how to pass arguments, not the context or conditions in which this endpoint is appropriate.

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