qui_get_instance_transfer_info

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a read-only operation, and the GET method aligns with that. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as what data is returned, side effects, authentication needs, or required instance existence. It only restates the endpoint call pattern, adding minimal value beyond the annotation.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the endpoint and then briefly explains the argument convention. There is no redundant or filler content; 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 presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, the description does not explicitly state that the instance ID path variable is required or how to set it (e.g., arguments.instanceID), nor what transfer-info represents. Given the tool's simplicity and output schema, this is adequate but has clear gaps in complete invocation guidance.

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 (arguments object with additionalProperties true) and has 0% coverage. The description explains the overall argument structure (path, params, body) but does not name the specific parameter for the {instanceID} path variable or any query/body parameters. It partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves the agent to infer the required instanceID key from the endpoint string.

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 clearly states the tool calls the specific GET endpoint /instances/{instanceID}/transfer-info, which is a unique action and distinguishable from sibling tools by the endpoint path. However, it does not explicitly differentiate the purpose (e.g., 'retrieve transfer info for an instance') from other instance-related tools, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 provides only how to pass arguments (path variables directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params, body in arguments.body) but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or alternative tools for retrieving other instance information, so selection guidance is missing.

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