qui_get_latest_version

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation, and the description's mention of GET aligns with that. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as what the response contains, whether it requires network access, or any rate limits. It does not go beyond the annotation's disclosure.

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 states the endpoint first and then explains argument structure. There is no fluff or redundancy; every word 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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered, and the tool is simple. However, the description lacks context about the meaning of 'latest version' (e.g., remote vs. installed) and does not tell the agent when this should be invoked relative to other version-related tools. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 is a free-form object with no documented parameters (0% coverage), so the description's guidance on passing path variables, query values in arguments.params, and a body in arguments.body is valuable. However, it does not enumerate specific parameters for this endpoint, leaving the agent to guess what path variables or query parameters might be accepted, which limits its usefulness.

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 identifies the tool as calling the GET /version/latest endpoint, which is a specific resource and distinct from sibling tools like qui_get_version. The tool name also reinforces the purpose, making it unambiguous that this retrieves the latest version information.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., qui_get_version for the current version). It simply says 'Call qui's GET /version/latest endpoint' without any context about use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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