qui_get_instance_mediainfo

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description's explicit 'GET' matches that. However, it adds little behavioral context beyond the annotation—no mention of auth requirements, rate limits, response shape, or edge cases.

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?

One sentence conveys the endpoint and argument-passing convention with no filler or redundancy. Every part earns its place.

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 output schema covers return format and the annotation covers safety, but the description omits specific parameter names and usage caveats. For a simple GET with a generic input schema, it is minimally viable but not fully self-contained.

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 generic (only an 'arguments' object with no properties), so the description must compensate. It explains that path variables go in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and a JSON body in arguments.body—valuable structure not present in the schema. It stops short of naming 'instanceID' explicitly, but the endpoint template makes that inferable.

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 names the exact endpoint 'GET /instances/{instanceID}/mediainfo' with a clear verb and resource, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like qui_get_torrent_file_mediainfo or qui_get_instance_capabilities. It also specifies the argument-routing convention.

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, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description focuses entirely on invocation mechanics rather than selection context.

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