qui_get_instance_cross_seed_status

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the endpoint call, such as return format details, error behavior, or any side effects. It doesn't contradict annotations, but it also doesn't enhance transparency beyond them.

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 that front-loads the endpoint and immediately provides the argument-passing convention. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Although an output schema exists to describe returns, the description fails to explain what the cross-seed status represents or when to use this tool. It is a bare technical instruction with no functional overview, and the lack of usage guidance makes it incomplete for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 a free-form object with 0% property coverage, so the description provides essential guidance by specifying how to structure arguments: path variables directly, query values in arguments.params, and JSON body in arguments.body. This is critical for correct invocation and goes far beyond the ambiguous 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 identifies the exact endpoint and HTTP method, making it clear that the tool retrieves cross-seed status for a specific instance. It indirectly differentiates from siblings like qui_get_cross_seed_status by including {instanceID} in the path, though it does not explicitly state this distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as qui_get_cross_seed_status or qui_list_cross_seed_runs. The description only explains how to call the endpoint, not the intended use case or preconditions.

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