qui_get_instance_capabilities

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

Annotations already mark the operation readOnlyHint=true, and the description merely confirms it's a GET endpoint with no side effects. It adds no further behavioral context such as response size, potential errors, or required authentication, so value beyond annotations is minimal.

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 crisp sentences; the first states the endpoint and the second explains argument layout. No filler or redundant information.

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 description is sufficient for invoking the endpoint technically, and the presence of an output schema covers return values. However, it lacks context about what capabilities represent, when the tool should be used, and any prerequisites like requiring a valid instanceID, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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?

With an input schema that has zero documentation on the single 'arguments' field, the description provides critical structure: path variables at the top level, query parameters under arguments.params, and body under arguments.body. This fully 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 identifies the exact REST endpoint (GET /instances/{instanceID}/capabilities), making the resource and operation clear. However, it does not provide a plain-language statement of what 'capabilities' are in this context, and it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like qui_get_instance_mediainfo or qui_get_instance_transfer_info.

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 offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives among the many instance-related getters. It only explains parameter passing conventions, not selection criteria or exclusions.

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