qui_get_instance_app_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description states it's a GET call, which is consistent. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects, authentication needs, or response specifics. The argument passing convention is more about parameter semantics than behavioral transparency. No contradiction.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the endpoint and argument passing rules. There is no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple API wrapper tool.

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 presence of an output schema, return-value details are not needed. The main gap is the lack of explicit identification of required path variables (instanceID) and clarification of what 'app-info' returns versus other instance-related tools. The description is adequate for a straightforward endpoint call but leaves room for ambiguity in a large sibling set.

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 has zero documentation for parameters (only a generic 'arguments' object). The description provides a structural pattern for passing path variables, query values, and body, which partially compensates. However, it does not name specific required parameters like instanceID, leaving the agent to infer from the URL template. This is minimal but non-zero value.

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 specifies the exact endpoint (GET /instances/{instanceID}/app-info), making the tool's purpose clear: retrieving application info for an instance. It does not explicitly explain what 'app-info' contains or differentiate from sibling tools like qui_get_instance_capabilities, but the endpoint name and method provide a strong clue.

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 variables directly, query values in arguments.params, body in arguments.body), which is useful for invocation. However, it does not indicate when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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